Should the rich pay more taxes?

[Merryprankster]

Most of the time when I read about the rich paying more taxes, the argument runs along the lines of tax burdens (ie, the rich can afford it, etc). They also talk about social justice, which I don't really dig as an argument.

Only rarely, and in a not fully developed form, in my opinion, is what I consider to be a potentially more compelling argument, should it pan out: The rich derive greater benefit, on the whole, from common property and services.

Business, for instance relies on the interstate transportation system. Public education creates a cadre of at least competent people that the rich employ in various capacities to make more money. In essence, publicly supported infrastructure, in a variety of forms, is a common good that the rich may derive greater utility from, individually, than the middle class and poor.

For the purposes of this discussion I would include corporations in this construct.

Note that I am not necessarily suggesting we increase taxes (although I think it's a good idea), I am merely making a tentative argument for progressive taxation.

What say you?

Has anybody done any studies estimating the relative benefit to the rich from common property and services? Do they benefit - in a proportional sense - more heavily than the middle class or poor? (ie, they can trace a greater percentage of their wealth/income to public goods/services than the middle class/poor?)

[rogue]

The hard part comes when we charge them for that system and they pull their factories out of some congressman's district.

The problem I have with progressive taxes is that they tend to progress downwards from the rich to the middle class.

[Merryprankster]

rogue,

True, but if you were to institute a federal tax raise it hits everybody/corporation across the states.

How are we defining middle class? According to statistics I'm in a rather high income bracket, but I sure don't feel that way or live that way, LOL.

[unkokusai]

............................................Flat Tax

[Merryprankster]

Sorry, the laffer curve has been discredited about a gazillion times unkokusai.

The flat tax has an inherent appeal, but it wouldn't be fair if somebody could demonstrate who derives more benefit, relatively from public goods and services.

If somebody could establish THAT, that would lead us to a fair tax system.

[Merryprankster]

Maybe a way to get at it is to examine corporate/personal gross income in some relationship to the relatively fixed cost of certain public goods and services?

[mantis108]

The rich doesn't necessary get richer by working hard. This is the most common misconception that hard work translate to riches. What gives rich people wealth is the triangle of power (ideas, connections and timing). Being rich is never about how many zeros you have written in your bank book. That is just common perception of wealth which is misguided in the first place. Rich people have a good understanding of the political and economic systems that they can shelter their wealth and at the same time leverage other people money or properties (intellectual or otherwise) to their own advantage. They know how to ride the systems better than most. That's how they get rich. Unless there is no tax heaven such as Bahamas, Swiss banks, etc. You will never really formulate a "fair" tax system.

The best thing to do is stop politicians to treat war as chess games. That will cut a big chunck of the budget already. A "fair" goods and services tax (that means paid as you go and everyone pays regardless) say 7% - 10% and no personal income. Government don't like that because that's not a stable revenue collecting source. Coperate responsibility show be around 10 - 15% max. This way you encourage people to work harder and restore wealth to the people (they don't need to hide the money from government when the tax responsibility is minimum). Greed can drive the enconomy too. ;)

Just a thought.

Mantix108

[golden arhat]

............................................Flat Tax

heres what happened here when something quite similar called the poll tax was introduced
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdeFc0OPcmc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YCfVCAsasJo&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zdVquOmFJ0U&mode=related&search=

this is the best one

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zdVquOmFJ0U&mode=related&search=

[Merryprankster]

The best thing to do is stop politicians to treat war as chess games.

Huh?

And as far as the sales tax goes, sales tax (a general goods and services tax) DEFINITELY hurts the poor more than anybody else, as a greater percentage of their income goes to paying the sales tax on necessities.

The tax burden in this country is not especially high, so I'm not sure how the rest of your post makes and sense or difference.

[Yum Cha]

Merry,
You nailed it in one. A national economy is not the sole property of one or another "group", it is common property. Some say it is simply a cr@p-shoot for entrepreneurs, but I find that rather pessimistic, however not to be ignored.

Some of the biggest profits are made by speculators, who are simply gamblers, and create no service, no jobs and no resources. People who provide capital for development, growth and expansion are not just speculators. Future traders in petrol, or heating oil are. Are they necessary, possibly, are they to be rewarded and lauded for increasing costs to the economy. Hardly.

Its simply a user-pays proposition. The more you use the economy, the more you pay.

But there is more, beyond the welfare disincentive, economic rationalism, petit Bougouis greed and social climbing and paternal corporate posturing to disguise the usery - the very real fact that a society has certain realities that can't be ignored. Or rather, ignoring them brings about certain "costs" and the lowest cost is associated with simple redistribution of income.

The engine room needs fuel, and the masters of the machine need to fuel it.
i.e. workers need to eat, be healthy and have education to keep working, and driving the profits.

The entrepreneurs need higher rewards to mitigate the higher risk, and they get it in real terms, through higher wages, equity and lifestyle.

I don't buy the argument that CEO's need 300 times the workers wage to motivate them, when the CEO's in Japan have been kicking Yankee A$$ in a lot of fields for a very long time at a fraction of the wage.

As for punishing the people who create jobs and drive the economy? That old middle class climber chestnut? Consumers create jobs and drive the economy, I suggest. Cut the Sales Tax, not the income tax.

Yea, I know, Socialism in Australia has poisoned my mind. Any poison round your parts there partner?

[mantis108]

Military spending has always been one of the big ticket items on all Government budgets. I believe much of the US deficits came from war spending nowadays (even in Canada) although politicians deny it anywhich way they can. Anyway I am just saying politicians should becareful with how they spend tax payers' money.

Goods and services tax is democratic in nature IMHO. No one is discriminated against by such a system. You only pay as you need the goods or the service. If you are a citizen or resident (even illegal immigrants), you have to paid period. Sale tax in geneal don't apply to food or necessities items. So I don't think that "hurts" the poor. If a person is "poor" but he or she still wants to smoke a cigarette or drink a beer, etc., which is not good for him/her in the first place, I think it's fair enough to tax them in those cases. If one can afford such "luxury" or "decadant" items, I don't think he/she should complain being "poor". As long as you work hard, you should never be in the "poor" category anyway.

Mantis108

[BoulderDawg]

I have no problem with a flat tax that you paid no matter what. However it should start at income over 100K.:D

You know the conservatives are constanly preaching cut taxes, cut taxes cut taxes....Why not just do away with taxes altogether. The government doesn't need revenue from taxes. It has the paper, it has the ink and the printing presses.......When ever Bush needs money for the war all he has to do is just print up several billion!:eek:

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

The Rich already pay more taxes than the poor, or middle class.

A person with a million dollar income pays more in taxes, even with his tax breaks, then the average person MAKES all year (Imagine making 50,000 a year, and having to give it all to Uncle Sam).

I don't think it is fair, and the rich need some relife from thier excessive taxes...especially when they are often the ones who provide the JOBS that the midle income people use to pay *Thier* taxes in the first place.

[NJM]

I hear conservatives and liberals arguing about who should get money. I heard an arguement against wellfare once, and couldn't help but jump in. The guy said, "Why should I give my money that I earned by working hard to wellfare slackoffs?"

My answer: Because of the same values that you want the country run by.

[Merryprankster]

Goods and services tax is democratic in nature IMHO. No one is discriminated against by such a system. You only pay as you need the goods or the service. If you are a citizen or resident (even illegal immigrants), you have to paid period. Sale tax in geneal don't apply to food or necessities items. So I don't think that "hurts" the poor. If a person is "poor" but he or she still wants to smoke a cigarette or drink a beer, etc., which is not good for him/her in the first place, I think it's fair enough to tax them in those cases. If one can afford such "luxury" or "decadant" items, I don't think he/she should complain being "poor". As long as you work hard, you should never be in the "poor" category anyway.


Sin taxes are different from what you were proposing and sales tax does indeed apply to clothing and such, gas etc. So I really don't think it's a good idea. Sure, you could sacrifice modern life to avoid it, but since quality of life is the issue, at the end of the day, it subverts the intent.

Finally, there are lots of working poor, so that still makes no sense at all.

Yum Cha, I can see in your posting one of the reasons strident socialists tend to turn me off; the idea that economics is zero sum and somebody must be getting screwed. I don't believe that. I don't believe it from an intentional perspective or from a structural/systematic one. The marxist/neo-marxist argument, whether intentional or structural in nature is SO cynical, it's an impediment to human progress.

I also think speculators play a very useful role. First they create capital for use in other market sectors. Secondly, the sheer number of them means they serve as useful market regulators - they are the most responsive corrective mechanism in tha modern marketplace. While this leads to short term crisis, I think you'll find it mitigates larger scale disaster. Thinking that only people/corporations that produce things adds value is, I think, the sort of Dobbsian populism that is stuck in the 1950's.

[Merryprankster]

I don't think it is fair, and the rich need some relife from thier excessive taxes...especially when they are often the ones who provide the JOBS that the midle income people use to pay *Thier* taxes in the first place.


1. Our tax burden in this country is not especially high. It could stand to be a good bit higher. Paying down some debt wouldn't hurt.

2. The laffer curve is wrong, and despite cries from the far right, a modest tax increase would do little to slow economic growth in this country.

3. How can you say it's fair or not? I don't know how much benefit the rich derive. I think the first way to start is to compare the aggregate income of the top 1% and the aggregate income of the median 1% to the federal budget or a representative sample of the public goods and services available. While somebody might not directly benefit (ie, they don't have kids and went to private school), they certainly indirectly benefit (educated workers and people are a defining trait of modern, successful economies and societies). The direct and indirect benefits would have a way of working themselves out in the aggregate data, so measuring each individual's benefits is not necessary.

If the rich derive a benefit that is LESS than their current tax contribution, then it would be FAIR to reduce their taxes. But if they derive a benefit that is GREATER than their current tax contribution, then it would be FAIR to raise their taxes.

[unkokusai]

The flat tax has an inherent appeal, but it wouldn't be fair if ....


Oh boy, when somebody starts throwing the word "fair" around you'd best hold on to your wallet, 'cause they're comin' for ya!

:rolleyes:

[unkokusai]

If the rich derive a benefit that is LESS than their current tax contribution, then it would be FAIR to reduce their taxes. But if they derive a benefit that is GREATER than their current tax contribution, then it would be FAIR to raise their taxes.

Gee, I wonder what conclusion vote-hungry lawmakers of a certain political stripe would come to?:rolleyes:

[Merryprankster]

Gee, I wonder what conclusion vote-hungry lawmakers of a certain political stripe would come to?

So what? That's what politicians do! That's why we have what they refer to in parliamentary countries as an "opposition" party.


Oh boy, when somebody starts throwing the word "fair" around you'd best hold on to your wallet, 'cause they're comin' for ya!


I don't use fair as a synonym for just.

The purpose of taxes is not social justice. However, a tax system should be fair.

They are not the same thing.

[unkokusai]

Too funny! C'mon, you're not naive. Words like 'fair' are meaningless because it all works out to be someone's political agenda that 'creates' the definition.

There is no 'answer' to this kind of thing, and it will be argued over 'till the end of time, but I know what kind of country I prefer.

You are either moving in one direction or the other. Your direction in this case seems clear.

[Merryprankster]

I'm not being naive. I'm asking a question in a hypothetical world, where we could soberly and honestly analyze the data and see what the answer actually is, or some approximation of it.

I don't think for a minute that it wouldn't be pre-empted by politicians for their own purposes.

Incidentally, I call bull**** on you telling me what my direction is. Perhaps you missed my defense of market speculators and my distaste for Lou Dobbs...

However, since you seem interested, I'm a social liberal and a die-hard capitalist and fiscal conservative...not of the no taxes variety, but of the "let's be a little bit responsible about our debt" variety. Oh, and I also support having one of the strongest militaries in the world (albeit, my force structure would be very diferent." Oh, and I'm an internationalist in temperment with a partiality towards constructivism as an overarching international theory.

I'm one of those folks who likes to go where the data lead me. Sorry. Part of that process is trying to figure out approaches to find OUT what the data are saying.

And yes, I'm aware that no matter how much I try, my opinions will be at least somewhat subjective, since we all come with entering assumptions. I do try to understand all sides of something before I come to a decision. It usually ****es ideologues off.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I also think speculators play a very useful role. First they create capital for use in other market sectors. Secondly, the sheer number of them means they serve as useful market regulators - they are the most responsive corrective mechanism in tha modern marketplace. While this leads to short term crisis, I think you'll find it mitigates larger scale disaster. Thinking that only people/corporations that produce things adds value is, I think, the sort of Dobbsian populism that is stuck in the 1950's.

Reply]
You are 100% correct!!

I will continue to remind myself of that as the value of my October Sugar Put option erodes.....

[Mr Punch]

punish those who move the economy and create jobs? great idea... ............................................Flat TaxYep, it is a great idea!

1) It's not punishment. Regardless of the moralistic argumment that many of them don't actually work very hard for their money, they already get 'just' reward in salary, wealth management schemes, and associated lifestyle.
2) So why should they get taxed higher? As Merry said, they use more of everything! Fairness doesn't come into it: it's logic.
3) Anyone whose heart bleeds for these parasites is simply hilarious... do you really think thye don't already as many ways to avoid taxes as they have dollar bills?! They all have accountants (or wealth/asset managers) who are employed specifically to ensure that they can keep as much of their wealth as possible, be it in bum meaningless 'forestry' schemes in Indonesia, yacht-building in the Seychelles, trust-funds for their parasite kids to go to Harvard, snort coke and become president or whatever... :rolleyes: Joking, but barely!
4) Again as someone pointed out, the consumer keeps the economy afloat, and the workers keep it moving... when a big company goes, little ones spring up in its place keeping the economy healthier in many cases.


I don't buy the argument that CEO's need 300 times the workers wage to motivate them, when the CEO's in Japan have been kicking Yankee A$$ in a lot of fields for a very long time at a fraction of the wage.

I don't buy that argument either... but using Japanese CEOs as a paragon of virtue is not the answer. Sure their wages are much much lower, but everything is perks. They get company cars, company paid mansions, holiday homes, holidays, flights, hotels, dinner, lunch, happy soapland massages... do you think they get taxed on that?! It is the same even after the Bubble burst. When the Bubble went a few CEOs got the chop, but mostly it was mid managers who ended up sleeping under blue plastic tarps or leaving their shoes next to the Chuo line. Most of the CEOs are still unnaccountable, unless something gets real big publicity.

Merry, as for finding out whether they should pay higher taxes or not... that kind of study would be very very difficult. Personally, I'd want to hit them with life-cycle analysis of their products and CBA up the yazoo, so we could nail them for 'disbenefits' incurred on the health and social systems of Mexico for their factories, those incurred on China for their toxic waste disposal services, and on the world in general for environmental disbenefit... but then that may not be the fairest system either! :rolleyes:- and I like Hugo Chavez :D

[unkokusai]

So what? .


So what? So just come out and admit that you are simply pushing your political views instead of trying to clothe them in a discussion of 'economics.'

[mantis108]

Sin taxes are different from what you were proposing and sales tax does indeed apply to clothing and such, gas etc. So I really don't think it's a good idea. Sure, you could sacrifice modern life to avoid it, but since quality of life is the issue, at the end of the day, it subverts the intent.

No, I am not proposing sin taxes. I am saying that people shouldn't be biatching about their poorness and being "working poor". I know because I am one of them but I don't complain. I work to become a small business owner and learn roll with the "system" instead of roll over by it. ;) I am proposing flat taxes which is only possible if government watch their spending (ie legislated balanced budgets). As I said flat tax isn't government's choice of revenue because it largely prohibits what the government can "play" with. I honestly don't believe that the people should suffer before some fat belly politicians p!ss away tax payer's hard earn dollars.


Finally, there are lots of working poor, so that still makes no sense at all.

Financial health and physically health is the same condition IMHO and both can be worked to improve in most cases. No one is responsible for that expect you. If you are poor, you have better look at what in your lifestyle or your way of thinking is making you poor. It's like a martial artist complaining about his teacher didn't show him the winning techniques while he is being lethargic in thinking about it himself. I say to the working poor stop pointing fingers and take responsibility for your life.

Mantis108

[Merryprankster]

You need to pick your heroes better. Hugo Chavez is nothing more than a 3rd world Stalinist wanna-be who has consistently demonstrated his disdain for democratic ideals and freedom of speech. He has implemented policies that will be disasterous for Venezuelans.

Secondly, I don't know if the rich use more of everything or not, and I'm not sure the analysis would be all that hard. The problem that people have arises when they look at the specific data. You need to go to the aggregate for this - the lumps and bumps even out over the aggregate.

unkokusai, I refer you to my comment about ideologues. You've demonstrated that you're not interested in exploring the issue; you would only consider somebody right/smart, etc if they agree with you. Not the point of this.

I'm ignoring you for the rest of this thread. Take that however you want.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

1) It's not punishment. Regardless of the moralistic argumment that many of them don't actually work very hard for their money, they already get 'just' reward in salary, wealth management schemes, and associated lifestyle.

Reply]
No, they have all that because they are unfairly over taxed.

2) So why should they get taxed higher? As Merry said, they use more of everything! Fairness doesn't come into it: it's logic.

Reply]
Actually, the rich GIVE more to the economy than anyone else. They build businesses, and HIRE employees, and pay thier salaries. On Rich person with 10 Middle income emplyees payes out a cool MILLION every year in salaries, and match taxes. Now you expect them to pay exccessive taxes too? (Which are more than you MAKE all year)

Tell me this, why does the guy who builds the bussiness, and provides the jobs all the middle income block DEPEND on, have to pay more dollars in taxes every year than the blocks he's supporting?

If you make $50,000, and pay $12,000 in taxes every year, and you think that is alot, YOUR BOSS is paying $50,000 a year in cold hard cash to the US government.

Why should he have to pay $50,000 in cold hard cash, and you only have to pay $12,000? Especially when his business is the engine that runs this economy!?

I think if you are going to take shots at the rich, then you should offer to pay $50,000 in cold hard cash direct to the government yourself.


3) Anyone whose heart bleeds for these parasites is simply hilarious... do you really think thye don't already as many ways to avoid taxes as they have dollar bills?! They all have accountants (or wealth/asset managers) who are employed specifically to ensure that they can keep as much of their wealth as possible, be it in bum meaningless 'forestry' schemes in Indonesia, yacht-building in the Seychelles, trust-funds for their parasite kids to go to Harvard, snort coke and become president or whatever... Joking, but barely!

Reply]
Those accountants cost big bucks my freind. Each one draws a $100,000 a year + salary, and this is in addition to the rich guys haveing to fork out a cool $50,000 in raw bills to the tax man. You crab and coplain, but you really should be thanking the God's it's not YOU who has to come up with 50,000 to pay a tax bill...and you say the Rich should be charged more? They takle all the risks, go through all the head aches, deal with all the red tape, and pay more in taxes every year than most even MAKE in that time!!

4) Again as someone pointed out, the consumer keeps the economy afloat, and the workers keep it moving... when a big company goes, little ones spring up in its place keeping the economy healthier in many cases.

Reply]
If the Rich business owners didn't HIGHER those workers, they couldn't do squat. The workers don't keep the economy afloat, they suck off the tits of the Rich and laugh all the way to the bank because they are not stck forking out the big bills come tax time...which is 4 times a year for a buisiness owner...

[Merryprankster]

RD1A and his opponents:

You're arguing about where a cycle/symbiotic relationship begins.

I don't think that makes much sense - no part of the cycle prospers without the other.

Mutually co-dependent....

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Agreed, except ONE part pays more in Taxes than the other even makes, so i think the other should just shut up, or share the burden!

[B-Rad]

All I want is more than the minimal $0.21/year raise when the company I'm working for (Lowes) is making huge profits... :(

[Merryprankster]

Agreed, except ONE part pays more in Taxes than the other even makes, so i think the other should just shut up, or share the burden!


I think this has to be weighed against the benefit they derive from public goods and services.

Presumably, a rich person or corporation derives a greater benefit. The question is - to what degree, and is that degree higher or lower than the tax burden they "enjoy" now?

[Yum Cha]

OK Merry,
You pointed out the wickedness of my ways. Speculators do serve a purpose, I just don't like them. Kinda like that sometimes.

Concerning your perspective on fairness. To follow it through, you would have to calculate if the bottom 1% take more out or give more back than they are taxed, in which case, you would probably have to raise their taxes, yet, could they pay?

What than? I suspect somebody would have to subsidise them.

Also, the common misconception that welfare goes to lazy people is brainwashing. In the US, the vast majority of welfare goes to children. Too lazy to work? No, we have laws against it. Should they starve for the sins of their parents?

Economic rationalism is applied to workers, in that if they are too expensive, they are outsourced to other cheaper economies, replaced by machines, or otherwise resourced, yet bloated executive salaries are supported because "that is what is needed to attract the talent". That is rubbish, and my example of the japanese is not to as much praise them, as to point out the differential.

Executive bonuses for executives that fail is a classic example.

On a side note -

Wages are taxed, but reinvestment, corporate capital, trust accounts, etc are not taxed to the same extent, partially because the capital is still "working". People call these tax dodges, and yes, sometimes they are, but nevertheless, they are still 'working', compounding their value.

AND - different tax rates, consider the marginal difference. When you calculate the amount of advantage a high salaried individual is deemed to gain from the economy agains the margainal difference, 5-10%? It doesn't seem so big.

[unkokusai]

Incidentally, I call bull**** on you telling me what my direction is. .


You can 'declare' yourself anything you want, but when your words on your thread indicate something, I gotta call it like I see it.

[The Willow Sword]

Unkokusai does what every good neo-con should do. If some alternative viewpoint comes out that counters his own ideological neo con babble, it is very convenient for them to label it a "political agenda" and close thier ears and shout out "nya nya i cant hear you i cant hear you". Its the Ultimate contradiction in terms when the Neo cons spout out " political agenda" when they themselves are the authors of the "political agenda".:rolleyes:
Yeah those dirty Liberals are gonna take away your privilages,your guns, your tax breaks,your stingy corporate outsourcing, oh my gawd there gonna put a woman in charge,Obama will get elected ,saints preserve us the south is falling:eek:
They will all move to the center of the country and wall off ohio or some midwest state and create a country of their own;)

i can already hear the birds chirping and the Sun coming out:cool:


Peace,TWS

[WinterPalm]

Yes.


However, who usually decides to raise or lower taxes? Hmmm, the rich?

[Black Jack II]

No they should not.

Punishing somoneone for class envy and jealousy is thin in my book. Even worse when you try and punish someone who creates the very job you hold and helps to drive the economy.

The bullsh!t about wanting an even playing field is just a smokescreen for those who dislike others who are a big success. It's not your wealth to redistribute, you did not earn it, those that were hardworking enough or just darn lucky got there and they should have the right to enjoy it.

Not some fat a$$ welfare mom with 6 kids, with 3 different baby daddies, who does nothing but sit inside all day, smoke pot, bone other losers without protection and watch Maury on the new tv they somehow are able to get there hands on with other peoples cash.

[rogue]

Hell, a lot of American execs are as bad as any welfare mother. For example, you screw up and cost a company $2,000 you out on the street looking for a new job. Mr. Executive makes a blunder that cost over $2,000,000 and he's negotiating the terms of his leaving which usually includes continued medical benefits, large payout package and lovely parting gifts like a laptop and a leased car. All that for being as dumb as a rock. And no, I didn't pull this example out of thin air.



I think this has to be weighed against the benefit they derive from public goods and services.

Presumably, a rich person or corporation derives a greater benefit.

How does a rich person derive greater benefit from public goods and services? I do rub shoulders socially with some darn wealthy people and if anything they use less public goods and services. Heck these people find it a hardship fly only first class. Also see above rant about an execs unemployment package.

[Black Jack II]

Hell, a lot of American execs are as bad as any welfare mother

I disagree. I don't believe that description comes close to being compaired to the one I stated, in the context of "as bad." Nor was mine pulled out of thin air.

First off, he had a job, so ergo he was contributing and more than anything will get another job, which unlike the career welfare mom just wants to sit on her kester and collect checks and government perks like a free car and lowered rent. Also just because Mr. Executive negotiates his leaving package, which may include large payouts, is just indicative of the successfull position he has achieved in life. It's part and parcel of where he is at.

Most rich people did not get there by a accident nor did poor people get there by a accident. Economic status is often a good or bad life decisions. What this is is that certain people hate the concept of profit, in specific they hate those that have the ability to make what "they" term an excessive profit.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Most rich people did not get there by a accident nor did poor people get there by a accident. Economic status is often a good or bad life decisions. What this is is that certain people hate the concept of profit, in specific they hate those that have the ability to make what "they" term an excessive profit.

Reply]
I'd like to add that is that they hate because they don't have the ability to do it themselves...it's a Jealousy thing.

[rogue]

I disagree. I don't believe that description comes close to being compaired to the one I stated, in the context of "as bad." Nor was mine pulled out of thin air.

First off, he had a job, so ergo he was contributing and more than anything will get another job, which unlike the career welfare mom just wants to sit on her kester and collect checks and government perks like a free car and lowered rent. Also just because Mr. Executive negotiates his leaving package, which may include large payouts, is just indicative of the successfull position he has achieved in life. It's part and parcel of where he is at.

Most rich people did not get there by a accident nor did poor people get there by a accident. Economic status is often a good or bad life decisions. What this is is that certain people hate the concept of profit, in specific they hate those that have the ability to make what "they" term an excessive profit.

BJ, I know more than a few of these clowns that drag each other around from company to company. If anything these guys are great salesmen gifted with a large set of juevos who may have had one trick up their sleeve that got them noticed.
These clowns gaining these positions and the cash that comes with it has nothing to do with accomplishing anything but more to do with snowing some ignorant CEO into believing that they can turn around a company or department long enough to collect some big checks.
Like I said, I brush shoulders with these guys socially and I've worked for more than a few. One who I had worked for darn near choked on his shrimp at a company Christmas party because I knew how the lying skunk sunk his last company. He was gone in under a year, and his little hanger ons soon after.
The only difference between the welfare mother and these corporate parasites is where their check comes from.

[unkokusai]

Unkokusai does what every good neo-con should do.


Too funny. Do you even realize that in attempting to categorize me, you just walked into your own little box and locked the door?

[WinterPalm]

Either way it's a class war.

The rich want less taxes for themselves and their buddies.
The poor want more taxes on the rich and less on themselves and their families.

It is unfortunate that the rich are winning it.

However, I have no desire to be rich...to own all kinds of crap and have the luxuries that no human should have while others live in squalor...no thanks. My income combined with my girlfriend's is just over the poverty line...but I enjoy life without cars, fancy appliances, and all that other junk...hell, I don't even have cable!

I work in the ghetto. Sometimes I feel that I have way too much compared to these people...it doesn't make me want more, that's for sure.

People need to spend more time on the streets, day to day, see how people live, both rich and poor.

Re welfare moms: I agree. While we're at it, women that get raped should be charged with enticement for wearing nice clothes. The elderly should be reprimanded for being too frail to fight back. Defenseless countries should be thankful they get invaded!

More so than the rich paying more taxes, a cap on wages, way more control over sprialing private ownership, no longer dealing with corporations that have abused employees under them, and slowing production.
It's people before profits, right? Maybe not I guess...
People need to just chill out, don't buy so much, don't work so much, have some more leisure time, don't be so darn greedy! Who cares if the economy grows in a country like the US where a lot of people don't even have health care?

Most of us have to operate within a system that makes us feel it is either me or them, and it's going to be you no matter how ruthless I have to be. It's disgusting. People give away their humanity and decency to get a new car, to get a raise, to buy a bunch of stuff that isn't going to be there when you die...but the people, the family, the friends, hopefully they will be around and you haven't alienated all of them becoming a greedy little squirrel with your pathetic nuts all hidden away!

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Either way it's a class war.

Reply]
Yup

The rich want less taxes for themselves and their buddies.

Reply]
That is because they are paying more in taxes each year than most people even make in that time....they are getting the short end of the stick , especially when you consider they are providing the engine that drives the over all economy, hires the employees, and pays them the salaries in which small portions of which go to taxes. In other words, if you make $50,000 a year, and pay $12,000 of that in taxes, your employer is probably paying 50,000 in cold cash to the government for his taxes (Higher bracket, makes more etc...)

I'm sure he's wondering whats so fair about him having to pay $50,000 in taxes, when you only have to pay $12,000.

Sure he wants to pay less for him and his buddies..imagine if YOU had to fork over FIFTY G'S every year!!


The poor want more taxes on the rich and less on themselves and their families.

Reply]

And that is exactly what they got...stick it to the rich so they don't have to pony up!

It is unfortunate that the rich are winning it.

Reply]
Winning it? How do you figure? when was the last time YOU had to dish out an average person's yearly salary to the tax man? sound more like the rich man is getting heavily shafted to me!!

[Black Jack II]

The only difference between the welfare mother and these corporate parasites is where their check comes from.

True, those guys may be parasites, though I would more than not call them conmen, but your right, the big difference is I am not paying there severance. It's not even close to the only difference I see, but I will concide that.


It is unfortunate that the rich are winning it.

:rolleyes:


However, I have no desire to be rich...to own all kinds of crap and have the luxuries that no human should have while others live in squalor

Good for you. A lot of people don't want to live like that.


Re welfare moms: I agree. While we're at it, women that get raped should be charged with enticement for wearing nice clothes. The elderly should be reprimanded for being too frail to fight back. Defenseless countries should be thankful they get invaded!

That is a genuine statement of grade A horsesh!t. Talk about changing around what someone said.


People need to spend more time on the streets, day to day, see how people live, both rich and poor.

No they don't.


a cap on wages

Canadian right....yep...could of guessed it. Which means its a lot of uneducated garbage about the US to follow.


People need to just chill out, don't buy so much, don't work so much, have some more leisure time, don't be so darn greedy! Who cares if the economy grows in a country like the US where a lot of people don't even have health care?

And here comes the cowpie, served up warm and toasty. Dude, everyone in America has access to healthcare, you will not be turned away, but the best part is since most of the healthcare system is private based, we have the very best in the world, its where people come to get the real deal.

Get a better job so you can buy a couple of books and get a more solid understanding of the geopolitical formation you are trying to dis. Not just the liberal internt propaganda.


People give away their humanity and decency to get a new car

Bawhaha....what the hell is in the water up there.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I am cool with everyone paying a consistent across the board average, be it 25% 35% or 50%, whatever.

Its only fair.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

How is that fair? you still have the wealthy paying more cold cash to taxes than the average man even makes in a year.

If you want fairness, maybe dropping the income tax all together, and only taxing sales of consumer goods.

[Black Jack II]

Royal,

Between the Bush Tax cuts, the Republican Congress back in 1996 and even slick Willy, I believe well over something like a third of American families no longer pay Federal income tax at all. Now these people are from the much more poor side of our population, and due to benevolence of the tax policy are actually being helped.

Countries need taxes, it helps with the defending of our nation, and many, many, many other aspect which keep the machine in working order.

[mantis108]

How is that fair? you still have the wealthy paying more cold cash to taxes than the average man even makes in a year.

If you want fairness, maybe dropping the income tax all together, and only taxing sales of consumer goods.

Yeah, that's what I am talking about. IMHO tax system should be democratic not discriminative in order to be "fair" but that's not what government like it to be. In Canada, personal income tax was brought in for fighting the WWI (God and Country for the Brits BS). Then the government got a taste of the "good life" such pension plan, health care, etc all the good ol' golden handshakes that afforded to the members of parliment, all thanks to having a reliable revenue. They never restore that wealth to the people. Politicians are blood sucking scums, period!

Mantis108

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Between the Bush Tax cuts, the Republican Congress back in 1996 and even slick Willy, I believe well over something like a third of American families no longer pay Federal income tax at all.

Reply]
You know what? I don't care. I can see if people are so poor they are struggling to make rent and food, but a fulll third of the country? Basically you now have the rich shouldering thier wieght so they can slide bye on other's.

Now these people are from the much more poor side of our population, and due to benevolence of the tax policy are actually being helped.

Reply]
If they are that poor, to where they can't survive other wise, I can see in those cases, but a full THIRD of the US? Are there that many under employed people out there that can't make ends meet?

Countries need taxes, it helps with the defending of our nation, and many, many, many other aspect which keep the machine in working order

Reply]
Agreed, but it's still not right when a certain class must pay more in taxes each year than the average even makes....

[Fu-Pow]

I agree with your original premise MP, the rich use more of the infrastructure, albeit indirectly, so they must shoulder a larger burden of taxes. Rich people don't live in a vacuum, as much as they'd like to pretend that they do.

In addition, a flat tax rate is disproportionate in terms of actual impact on how people live at different income levels.

For example, let's say I have 10 dollars, you have 100 dollars. We both pay a flat tax of 10 percent on that money.

I now have 9 dollars, you have 90 dollars. Who was impacted more by the tax in terms of what they can purchase?


FP

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Just exactly *How* does a wealthy man use more of the infrastructure? Do they drive more or something? Do they take bigger dumps, and thus need larger sewer pipes?

If anything they contribute far more, by providing JOBS, and HEALTH insurance to thier workers, not to mention creating consumer goods and products that fill the demands of the average middle income population.

Your premise is skewed. Think about it.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I now have 9 dollars, you have 90 dollars. Who was impacted more by the tax in terms of what they can purchase?

Reply]
You think it's just for the rich man to pay so much? How would you feel if you had to part with 90 bills, and your neighbor only had to lose 9?

How about this, suppose you went to a baseball game, and you had to pay 90 to get in because you are rich, but the block next to you only pays 9? You are getting the same thing (a baseball game) Is it fair that you have to pay 90, when the guy next to you gets in for a tenth of that?

[Mr Punch]

You need to pick your heroes better. Hugo Chavez is nothing more than a 3rd world Stalinist wanna-be who has consistently demonstrated his disdain for democratic ideals and freedom of speech. He has implemented policies that will be disasterous for Venezuelans.The big green round thing with lots of white teeth was supposed to emphasize my button pushing at that point. I know your opinion on Chavez, which is why I suddenly brought him into an unrelated argument... it was just a humourous attempt at pre-empting anybody accusing me of being a liberal or (shoot me!) a socialist... ;)

I don't know enough about Venezuela to make any informed opinion on Chavez. And irony doesn't come across so well in writing!


Secondly, I don't know if the rich use more of everything or not, and I'm not sure the analysis would be all that hard. The problem that people have arises when they look at the specific data. You need to go to the aggregate for this - the lumps and bumps even out over the aggregate.Separating the wood from the trees is difficult in economics. Are you suggesting an analysis of everybody who earns more than a certain income, and including and offsetting their wealth managers' efforts to get them good tax deals offshore? And how do you assess their perks (especially when many of them, as with the offshore deals are going to be confidential to some extent?). Ask them nicely?


In addition, a flat tax rate is disproportionate in terms of actual impact on how people live at different income levels.

For example, let's say I have 10 dollars, you have 100 dollars. We both pay a flat tax of 10 percent on that money.

I now have 9 dollars, you have 90 dollars. Who was impacted more by the tax in terms of what they can purchase?That's a good point that no-one has addressed yet.

Unkokusai, it seems MP was genuinely asking a question from the PoV of an economics problem. It seems that you were framing his question through your preconceptions of his political beliefs. You have more of an agenda.

BJ, the answer to your welfare mom's prob is as ever, (lack of) education. Which is a taxation problem among other things. Since this isn't going to change, shooting them or putting contraceptives in the water and getting them to apply to have kids would be far more relevant to their problems than taxation of the rich (or not). I'm all for the second one. This time, I might not be joking! ... :D

[Mr Punch]

RD, to answer 'how', you'd need to take some classes in basic economics.


Do they take bigger dumps, and thus need larger sewer pipes?Well, never let it be said that the rich are full of ****!

[rogue]

If anything they contribute far more, by providing JOBS, and HEALTH insurance to thier workers, not to mention creating consumer goods and products that fill the demands of the average middle income population.

Your premise is skewed. Think about it.

And when someone off shores a bunch of jobs to please Wall Street and then collects a bonus for doing so, how is he contributing to society? What has he created other than value for the almost mythical "stock holder"?

[BoulderDawg]

I've been reading some of this......You know it must really be a ***** to make something like 2 million dollars a year and have to pay 50-60% taxes. I don't know how these people make it on a little less than a million a year. It really makes me feel bad that my taxes are only about 20%. I might have to loan these people some money!

[Yum Cha]

I now have 9 dollars, you have 90 dollars. Who was impacted more by the tax in terms of what they can purchase?

Reply]
How about this, suppose you went to a baseball game, and you had to pay 90 to get in because you are rich, but the block next to you only pays 9? You are getting the same thing (a baseball game) Is it fair that you have to pay 90, when the guy next to you gets in for a tenth of that?

Happens all the time. You been to a game recently? 9 bucks gets you a bleacher seat in the sun, long walks to the loo, and the beer, and lots or rowdy fans.

90 gets you down in front, maybe a plastic seat, short walk to whatever you want, and most importantly, freedom from being bothered by the 'riff raff'.

[unkokusai]

Unkokusai, it seems MP was genuinely asking a question from the PoV of an economics problem. It seems that you were framing his question through your preconceptions of his political beliefs.



The two are inseparable.

[Yum Cha]

The reality is that class war is good. It lets one group manifest power, and make the advances, reap the rewards, yet counter-balances the extremes with the the demands of the working class, who also want more for their contribution.

This is the beauty of the free world economy, the balances. Like the speculators I refered to earlier. At least in our class war, name calling and peacefull protest is the battlefield for the most part. Not that much shooting and disappearing in the night going on.

=======

Black Jack, your grasp on superlatives is strong, your grasp on reality seems lacking good Fu. Do you really think all your welfare dollars go to pot smoking, trick turning, crack mamma baby factories? Come on, you know anybody with a crippled kid that gets some state support for wheelchairs or special education? How about some old folks, you must know an oldie or two on medicare/medicade. Perhaps a wounded vet? Some kid that gets subsidised lunch at school?

Sure, cut them loose, next week they'll be sticking a 38 special in the window of your Ford Pickup at the stop light. I know, you probably keep a gun handy too. Good luck! Or maybe one will crack your back door while your at work and make off with your plasma? My point is, there are costs, financial or societal, to having poor, and not helping them rise out of the cycle of poverty. A$$, gra$$ and Gas, nobody rides for free.

Redistribution of wealth - do you really think that when the Big corporate guy gets a massive payout, you aren't financing that? Not through taxes, perhpas, depending on the level of corporate welfare paid to his failing company, but surely through prices which have to cover the costs.

Yes, yes, yes, there are the unredeemable, at both ends of the bell curve, but you can't rule the middle based upon the extremes.

The issue I hear from you is not one of fiscal concepts, and economic management, but one of "Every man for himself, survival of the fittest."

[Yum Cha]

Rogue,

The battle is a three-way tag team. Management vs Stockholders vs Workers.

Some think Management is superior, and deserves the biggest piece of pie to motivate them to increased profitability, sales, and develop. Problem is, that they often neglect the long term for the short term bonuses and cut and run.

Some think the Stockholder is the one who deserves the big piece, as they finance it all, and without them nothing happens. Their weakness is, they are out of touch with the business, and don't make anything without the workers and managers.

Some think the workers deserve the most, because they are the producers, and that management and capital are simply parasites. Obvously, their weakness is that they are just uncontrolled rabble without management and without plant or equipment to work without capital.

However, as a few wise men have realised, that if you look out for labour, than there will always be rewards for management and capital. Labour is in it for the long term.

Economic rationalism, and its spawn the MBA, have lionised profits above viability, and therein lies its weakness. Who here loves that little fake tire you get as a spare these days? Thank the next MBA you see for that present.

[rogue]

Labor is in it for themselves just like management is. Why does it cost 2 to 3 thousand extra to build an American car?

[WinterPalm]

Either way it's a class war.

Reply]
Yup

The rich want less taxes for themselves and their buddies.

Reply]
That is because they are paying more in taxes each year than most people even make in that time....they are getting the short end of the stick , especially when you consider they are providing the engine that drives the over all economy, hires the employees, and pays them the salaries in which small portions of which go to taxes. In other words, if you make $50,000 a year, and pay $12,000 of that in taxes, your employer is probably paying 50,000 in cold cash to the government for his taxes (Higher bracket, makes more etc...)

I'm sure he's wondering whats so fair about him having to pay $50,000 in taxes, when you only have to pay $12,000.

Sure he wants to pay less for him and his buddies..imagine if YOU had to fork over FIFTY G'S every year!!


The poor want more taxes on the rich and less on themselves and their families.

Reply]

And that is exactly what they got...stick it to the rich so they don't have to pony up!

It is unfortunate that the rich are winning it.

Reply]
Winning it? How do you figure? when was the last time YOU had to dish out an average person's yearly salary to the tax man? sound more like the rich man is getting heavily shafted to me!!


People in Mexico make less than I pay in taxes.

They do drive the economy...and that is the problem. It is systematic, it is not a matter of fixing it, it is a matter of getting rid of it.
I'm sure that you are a glorified 21st century peasant like the rest of us...unless you're pulling in over several million a year.
The rich man makes the rules that he knows many cannot follow...the rich man makes the decisions for the way poor people conduct their lives, while he does not have to see how really hard it is...the rich man gives you all the opportunities in the world but if you get out of line, whammo!

It makes sense for many to side with the rich, they have the weapons and the means...but Robin Hood will always be a hero to me...even if he'd be called a terrorist by today's double standards.

[WinterPalm]

.

True, those guys may be parasites, though I would more than not call them conmen, but your right, the big difference is I am not paying there severance. It's not even close to the only difference I see, but I will concide that.



:rolleyes:



Good for you. A lot of people don't want to live like that.



That is a genuine statement of grade A horsesh!t. Talk about changing around what someone said.



No they don't.



Canadian right....yep...could of guessed it. Which means its a lot of uneducated garbage about the US to follow.



And here comes the cowpie, served up warm and toasty. Dude, everyone in America has access to healthcare, you will not be turned away, but the best part is since most of the healthcare system is private based, we have the very best in the world, its where people come to get the real deal.

Get a better job so you can buy a couple of books and get a more solid understanding of the geopolitical formation you are trying to dis. Not just the liberal internt propaganda.



Bawhaha....what the hell is in the water up there.

I may be uneducated about the US in some regards, but I'm sure you know all about the world outside your country!

For the record I am on the Dean's honour list and am currently completing an honours program. I think long and hard about what I say. IN fact, I have attended extensive seminars and done extensive research on most of these subjects, I wonder if you finished grade school? Or did you inherit daddy's business?:rolleyes:

As to getting onto the streets, seriously dude, you must be up in some gated community too afraid of the beggars to try and figure out how other people live. I have compassion and I try to understand the way people are treated.

People come to America to get "The very best in the world" if they are rich. Sorry buddy, most of the world is not a fat overpaid American or Canadian for that matter. I know you're so concerned about your little scrap and don't want the baddies coming to get it, but you should pick up a book. Or maybe some spirituality, or even some compassion.

[Yum Cha]

Labor is in it for themselves just like management is. Why does it cost 2 to 3 thousand extra to build an American car?

Rogue,
Everybody is in it for themselves, except of course for me. :D

I do take your point.

And of course, massive salaries and bonuses for management have nothing to do with the price of an automobile, as BJ has already established, its the lazy workers, bludging their way through an 8 hour shift sticking widgets into doohickeys, so they can go off and drop a few tinnies of beer before they head over and crash the yogurt truck into one of those unemployed crack mammas after work, breeding up more of the scum of society to pick your pocket for the next generation....

[Mr Punch]

The two are inseparable.Economic policy and political viewpoint are inseparable. Economic testing and political viewpoint are inseparable. MP was asking what tests it would be valid to use: of course, people's answers will show their colour, but the question could quite easily be neutral.

For example, CBA is a testing procedure often espoused by the left and renowned for subjectivity.

Merry was asking if the rich should pay more and if so, how should that be determined. He wasn't saying they should be and it should be determined by XYZ. Of course he has his opinions, but that's as objective as you're gonna get, matey.

For once your talent for understatement, pithy one-liners and put-downs isn't enough to contribute to the argument (though, in many threads they're quite spot on! :D )

[unkokusai]

I may be uneducated about the US in some regards, but I'm sure you know all about the world outside your country!

For the record I am on the Dean's honour list and am currently completing an honours program. I think long and hard about what I say. IN fact, I have attended extensive seminars and done extensive research on most of these subjects, I wonder if you finished grade school? Or did you inherit daddy's business?:rolleyes:

As to getting onto the streets, seriously dude, you must be up in some gated community too afraid of the beggars to try and figure out how other people live. I have compassion and I try to understand the way people are treated.

People come to America to get "The very best in the world" if they are rich. Sorry buddy, most of the world is not a fat overpaid American or Canadian for that matter. I know you're so concerned about your little scrap and don't want the baddies coming to get it, but you should pick up a book. Or maybe some spirituality, or even some compassion.



Oh, the EMOTION! :( :eek: :rolleyes:

[unkokusai]

Economic policy and political viewpoint are inseparable.

For once your talent for understatement, pithy one-liners and put-downs isn't enough to contribute to the argument

Really? 'Cause you just agreed with me and I didn't have to type all that jive you just wrote.



(I liked the "spot on" part though!:cool: )

[rogue]

Rogue,
Everybody is in it for themselves, except of course for me. :D

I do take your point.

And of course, massive salaries and bonuses for management have nothing to do with the price of an automobile, as BJ has already established, its the lazy workers, bludging their way through an 8 hour shift sticking widgets into doohickeys, so they can go off and drop a few tinnies of beer before they head over and crash the yogurt truck into one of those unemployed crack mammas after work, breeding up more of the scum of society to pick your pocket for the next generation....

The problem with losing our manufacturing edge is that it's caused by everyone involved, including the consumer who just wants some cheap crap. Sadly what management takes out of a company is a drop in the bucket compared to what some retired workers do.


washingtonpost.com
General Motors Getting Eaten Alive by a Free Lunch

By Allan Sloan

Tuesday, April 19, 2005; Page E03

A free lunch can be the most expensive meal in the world. For living proof, look at General Motors. A big reason that GM has gotten into such trouble is that the pension and health care commitments it made to employees decades ago seemed to be a free lunch.

The United Autoworkers placed a high value on these benefits, but the accounting rules of the time placed no cost on GM's risk of providing them. So the UAW and GM made deals that were heavy on benefits, relatively light on wages.

Lower salaries meant that GM reported higher profits, which translated into higher stock prices -- and higher bonuses for executives. Commitments for pensions and "other post-employment benefits" -- known as OPEB in the accounting biz -- had little initial impact on GM's profit statement and didn't count as obligations on its balance sheet. So why not keep employees happy with generous benefits? It was a free lunch. Besides, GM's only major competitors at the time, Ford and Chrysler, were making similar deals.

Now, as we all can see, pension and health care obligations are eating GM alive. The bill for the "free" lunch has come in -- and GM is having trouble paying the tab. In the past two years, GM has put almost $30 billion into its pension funds and a trust to cover its OPEB obligations. Yet these accounts are still a combined $54 billion underwater.

"Any market economist would tell you that things that are 'free' are overconsumed," says Greg Taxin, chief executive of Glass, Lewis & Co. "That's true of pensions, it's true of OPEB, and it's true of stock options in the '90s." That's a lesson the SEC seems to have ignored, given last week's decision to let companies delay counting the value of options as an expense. But that's a topic for another day.

GM began its slide down the slippery slope in 1950, when it began picking up costs for medical insurance, pensions and retiree benefits. There was huge risk to GM in taking on these obligations -- but that didn't show up as a cost or balance-sheet liability. By 1973, the UAW says, GM was paying the entire health insurance bill for its employees, survivors and retirees, and had agreed to "30 and out" early retirement that granted workers full pensions after 30 years on the job, regardless of age.

These problems began to surface about 15 years ago because regulators changed the accounting rules. In 1992, GM says, it took a $20 billion non-cash charge to recognize pension obligations. Evolving rules then put OPEB on the balance sheet. Now, these obligations -- call it a combined $170 billion for U.S. operations -- are fully visible. And out-of-pocket costs for health care are eating GM alive.

GM spokesman Jerry Dubrowski says the company expects to pay $5.6 billion in health care costs this year for 1.1 million people covered by its plans. That's up from the $3.9 billion it shelled out in 2001 to cover 1.2 million people.

"At the time GM began offering these benefits, no one had any idea that the costs for prescription drugs and medical services would explode the way they have," Dubrowski said. True. But the UAW was astute (or lucky) enough to push the risk of covering these costs onto GM.

GM's pension funds are in pretty good shape, thanks to an $18.5 billion infusion two years ago. GM got this cash by selling bonds at relatively low rates, hoping to resolve its pension problems once and for all. This maneuver has been successful so far, but funding the pension plans has consumed much of GM's borrowing power and strained its balance sheet.

At the end of last year, GM says, its U.S. pension funds showed a $3 billion surplus. GM's pension accounting, which assumes that the funds will earn an average of 9 percent a year on their assets, is highly optimistic. But things are under control -- as long as GM stays solvent.

By contrast, OPEB is out of control. At year-end, OPEB was $57 billion in the hole, even though GM threw $9 billion into an OPEB trust in 2004. The company has no legal obligation to pre-fund these costs, but it's trying to show the financial markets and its workers that it's dealing with them. The OPEB trust has a hefty $20 billion of assets -- but GM calculates its obligations at a staggering $77 billion.

What's more, GM says they're rising at 10.5 percent a year. Thus, even though President Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit whacked $4 billion off GM's OPEB obligation last year -- thanks, George -- it covered barely half the year's increase in the liability.

If GM were making lots of money selling vehicles, this would all be manageable, sort of. GM could buy enough time for demographics to bail it out, as more retirees begin getting Social Security and Medicare, reducing GM's costs, and other retirees die off. Its ratio of retirees to workers, currently 2.5 to 1, would shrink. Alas, GM's vehicle business is in the tank. Unless GM starts making money on vehicles or gets a break from the UAW or the federal government, things are going to get really ugly. I hope that doesn't happen, but it easily could.

The bottom line: Whenever you offer someone a free lunch, make sure that you'll be able to pay the bill when it comes in.

Sloan is Newsweek's Wall Street editor. His e-mail address is sloan@panix.com.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Merryprankster]

Economic policy and political viewpoint are inseparable. Economic testing and political viewpoint are inseparable.

I never said they weren't.

However, there is a big difference between taking a political stance because a particular analysis seems to stand on its merits, and adopting a particular economic policy because of your political viewpoint.

I think, as much as is practicable (since I recognize that we all walk around with particular assumptions) the analysis should drive your political viewpoint; ideology per se should not drive policy.

I think that is the mistake being made by many people. They allow their ideology to override sober analysis of a problem. You run into this all the time with 9/11 conspiracy theorists and people who think AQ attacked us because of U.S. foreign policy. Actual reading of actual AQ documents and transcripts would make it quite clear that WHOEVER the top dog in the free world was, AQ would attack them, sooner or later.

I'm suggesting only that on many issues we be as objective and thorough as possible. It occurs to me that this may be one of them.

As I should have expected, this thread has largely degenerated into a tiff over social justice vs. personal responsibility, instead of coming anywhere near the original question. Oh well.

[Yum Cha]

The problem with losing our manufacturing edge is that it's caused by everyone involved, including the consumer who just wants some cheap crap. Sadly what management takes out of a company is a drop in the bucket compared to what some retired workers do.

- followed by lengthy story about GM going broke paying entitlements to workers that have mounted in cost over the years -



I see Rogue, another example of mis-management: bad short-term gain negotiation, non-existant forward planning and irresponsible financial management by overpaid "management" being blamed on the workers and paid for by the stockholders?

Glad to see I'm winning you over mate. :D

We here in Oz have the same problem, for example, with QANTAS, where employees have negotiated great benefits, but which are now becoming a burden, and making problems for the financial viability of the organisation in a new competitive environment. So, tragically, they wind up the company, or threaten to, and re-negotiate or re-structure. In the bad old days, they didn't even have to carry the long term liabilities on the current account, kind of like the US Social Security pension. Nowdays, its harder to get away with that kind of 'see no evil' accounting.

I have another suggestion, perhaps the reason GM is going broke is because they make sh1t cars?

Oh, and I agree with you on the "Cheap cr@p" issue. People whine about it all, but still love to dance in the middle of a pile of cheap cr2p, like monkeys like to smear sh1t on their fur and pretend to be all dressed up.

Back to one of my original points, consumers drive the economy, not entrepreneurs. Dollar votes.


Cheers

[Mr Punch]

Looks like I didn't put that very well.

I was disagreeing with you Unkokusai... as I think you know... but since MP doesn't seem to realize I was agreeing with him either, let me try again.
...What say you?

Has anybody done any studies estimating the relative benefit to the rich from common property and services? Do they benefit - in a proportional sense - more heavily than the middle class or poor? (ie, they can trace a greater percentage of their wealth/income to public goods/services than the middle class/poor?)


Economic policy and political viewpoint are inseparable. Economic testing and political viewpoint are inseparable. MP was asking what tests it would be valid to use: of course, people's answers will show their colour, but the question could quite easily be neutral.Since he is not making economic policy, and he not putting forward any particular type of testing/study (he is asking what others think about what type would be feasible, or whether we think the rich even do benefit more), he has separated his political viewpoint from his economic opinion. His question is asking us our colour. You've shown yours in that you obviously don't agree that rich people benefit more heavily than the middle class or the poor... but wait, no you haven't, you've gotten all judgmental about why he was asking and about your opinion that a higher taxation grade can only be seen as some kind of punishment. It ain't necessarily so.

[golden arhat]

I disagree. I don't believe that description comes close to being compaired to the one I stated, in the context of "as bad." Nor was mine pulled out of thin air.

First off, he had a job, so ergo he was contributing and more than anything will get another job, which unlike the career welfare mom just wants to sit on her kester and collect checks and government perks like a free car and lowered rent. Also just because Mr. Executive negotiates his leaving package, which may include large payouts, is just indicative of the successfull position he has achieved in life. It's part and parcel of where he is at.

Most rich people did not get there by a accident nor did poor people get there by a accident. Economic status is often a good or bad life decisions. What this is is that certain people hate the concept of profit, in specific they hate those that have the ability to make what "they" term an excessive profit.

why not get rid of welfare all together
tax the rich as is appropriate and give money to poorer(note not food stamps just plain hard cash) families and take it away aftert a period if they dont get jobs
this will force ppl to beocme independant as opposed to dependant while still providing support

as for big CEO's driving the economy

to some extent they do but they are dependant on consumers just as they are dependant on the big compnies to provide what they want to consume

so if people habe more incentives to get jobs and make money then they can consume more thus driving the economy

u might wonder as to what kind of society this might create tho
but hey if u want to be a shallow consumer or change your life and go beyonf that then a prosperous economy and society will provide the stable nase from which that can occur

[rogue]

Most of the time when I read about the rich paying more taxes, the argument runs along the lines of tax burdens (ie, the rich can afford it, etc). They also talk about social justice, which I don't really dig as an argument.

Only rarely, and in a not fully developed form, in my opinion, is what I consider to be a potentially more compelling argument, should it pan out: The rich derive greater benefit, on the whole, from common property and services.

Business, for instance relies on the interstate transportation system. Public education creates a cadre of at least competent people that the rich employ in various capacities to make more money. In essence, publicly supported infrastructure, in a variety of forms, is a common good that the rich may derive greater utility from, individually, than the middle class and poor.

For the purposes of this discussion I would include corporations in this construct.

Note that I am not necessarily suggesting we increase taxes (although I think it's a good idea), I am merely making a tentative argument for progressive taxation.

What say you?

Has anybody done any studies estimating the relative benefit to the rich from common property and services? Do they benefit - in a proportional sense - more heavily than the middle class or poor? (ie, they can trace a greater percentage of their wealth/income to public goods/services than the middle class/poor?)

One thing that I believe is wrong with your argument is including corporations in with rich people. You can have a company of poor folks or rich folks who do not own a company. To me including the two together cloudies the water.

If a company uses the interstate highway system then they should be taxed for it's use. These days it would be quite easy to tax say trucks hauling goods, and a company's trucks could be taxed for using federal and local infrastructure. Of course they will pass that tax down to the consumer.
When it comes to rich people, regardless of whether they are the salt of the earth, or whale turds on the bottom of the Marianas Trench, should be taxed just like anybody else. I'm for a simplified tax. That means no loop holes, easy to figure out how much you owe whether by flat rate or a simple bracketed rate.

[Merryprankster]

Rogue, that's an interesting division, and one I hadn't considered. I was thinking that corporations are "legal people," in many senses, so just lumped them in.

Is there a way for us to figure out what the indirect benefits of public infrastructure/services are, relative to income as a whole, and incorporate that into our taxation scheme? I think that's what I was actually asking. And the reason I was asking it is because I would find analysis of something like that, provided it was done in a reasonably thorough, straightforward way, rather compelling. By way of example, presumably the Walton family has a greater vested interest in our transportation infrastructure, our civil security, our national security and our diplomatic relationships with other countries. This would extend to education as well, etc.

While it's clear they "owe more" in the absolute sense, which a flat tax would accomplish, I'm asking do they owe more in the RELATIVE sense? That is - do they derive a greater relative benefit than a middle class individual? Also, do they derive a greater or less relative benefit than what they are currently paying out?

The question I am asking is basically "given their tax burden now, are they paying too much or too little, and do we have any analytical mechanisms/tools that could give us a reasonable conclusion?"

This is in contrast to social justice arguments and personal responsibility arguments, which I find ludicrous unless there is a good cost-benefit analysis attached.

Question - is there enough room in our economy for a VAT tax (which would make every echelon in the chain pay, not just the consumer) and an elimination of the income tax altogether? Some economic growth would be lost to be sure, but I don't know how much.

One thing I am definitely not in favor of is a wealth tax, as some people have proposed (albeit not on this thread). You can be asset rich and cash poor. That would be a killer!

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

The rich man makes the rules that he knows many cannot follow...the rich man makes the decisions for the way poor people conduct their lives, while he does not have to see how really hard it is...the rich man gives you all the opportunities in the world but if you get out of line, whammo!

Reply]
This is a warped statement...NO ONE makes the rules for me, and no one but ME makes the decisions for the way i conduct my life...regardless of my level of income.

[Ultimatewingchun]

OF COURSE THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES...and the fact that they don't pay ENOUGH taxes is the single biggest problem that exists in our country...because it impacts everything in a negative manner.

EVERYTHING...

from the funding of the war ON THE CHEAP (and the results of that has been devastating to our soldiers and our standing in the world)...to the environment...immigrant problems because U.S. companies don't want to pay (or in some cases simply can't afford to pay) a decent salary to American workers in industries that other countries exploit with dirt-cheap labor...

the entire war on terror being handled the wrong way (ie.- we should be hunting down Al Queda and the Taliban on the Afghan-Pakistan border instead of waging a phoney war on terror in Iraq because the Haliburton's and the Exxon-Mobil's of the world want access to Iraq's oil fields)...

the environment and our use/dependence on fossil fuels (mostly imported from abroad)...health care that doesn't offer enough people adequate coverage - and companies like Wallmart that try to cheat its workers out of health benefits...lousy schools (teachers don't get paid enough to teach in public schools)...

the devastation brought about by NAFTA and other foreign FREE TRADE policies that are killing us economically and socially, ie.- China pays it's workers peanuts in a totalitarian society so that they can get rich by selling us goods at half of what we sell the same goods for - we should be raising the tariffs on their goods - and then provide subsidies for U.S. companies to compete in those industires that China tries to exploit with overly-cheap labor)...

the lack of alternative energy sources and related industries ("Who killed the electric car")...etc. With more money at the disposal of the Federal and State governments...we could offer economic tax incentives/support/R&D funding for companies that want to develop AFFORDABLE alternative energy sources (ie.- solar panels...electric power, wind power, water power, ethanol made from soy, sugar, wheat, corn, etc.)....

the same with companies wiling to invest in the electric car....the same wth affordable health care/drug providers...tax incentives/funding for companies in service industries, etc.

[WinterPalm]

The rich man makes the rules that he knows many cannot follow...the rich man makes the decisions for the way poor people conduct their lives, while he does not have to see how really hard it is...the rich man gives you all the opportunities in the world but if you get out of line, whammo!

Reply]
This is a warped statement...NO ONE makes the rules for me, and no one but ME makes the decisions for the way i conduct my life...regardless of my level of income.

I didn't know you were a politician...in that regards, then yes, you do make the rules that you follow.

[WinterPalm]

Oh, the EMOTION! :( :eek: :rolleyes:

It is a very emotional issue. THat is why some people dump arguments as soon as they are questioned and resort to personal attacks.
I grew up middle class, most of my friends were middle or working class and still are as they've grown up. I see, day to day, the issues that very hard-working people have to face...that is more important than all the university courses and intricate dialogue will ever accomplish. We can debate all we want in the ivory towers, or we can get in the gutter and try to fix a thing or two.

For all its worth, I think it is great that people are able to live luxurious lives, but it is not for everybody and I think no one should be rich on the level of millionares.

[Black Jack II]

And of course, massive salaries and bonuses for management have nothing to do with the price of an automobile, as BJ has already established, its the lazy workers, bludging their way through an 8 hour shift sticking widgets into doohickeys, so they can go off and drop a few tinnies of beer before they head over and crash the yogurt truck into one of those unemployed crack mammas after work, breeding up more of the scum of society to pick your pocket for the next generation....

What are you babbling about....?

When did I establish this now? Talk about walking a insincere line:rolleyes:


Do you really think all your welfare dollars go to pot smoking, trick turning, crack mamma baby factories

Same with this nonsense. I never stated it did at any time. What I did state was that "career welfare"is a serious problem. Don't go protesting arguements you make up for other people.

Merry just asked if the rich should pay more, if its a fair avenue of reasoning. In certain respects I disagree, even though I know its always fashionable for people to hate those that are successfull and blame there woes on them, take Winter Palm for example, but its not a game that I follow.

Is a fixed, Maggie Thatcher poll tax the answer?

Some may say so, well not the left, as for some reason they believe the evil rich use more national infrastructure to such a degree that they have to fund more on social spending. Meh....I have not seen a case yet that proves this without getting political.


OF COURSE THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES...and the fact that they don't pay ENOUGH taxes is the single biggest problem that exists in our country...because it impacts everything in a negative manner.

Saying the fact that the rich don't pay enough taxes as the single biggest problem in our country is full of it. I was going to debate it intell I came across this little diddy below, then said f@ck it.


waging a phoney war on terror in Iraq becasue the Halliburton's and the Exxon-Mobil's of the world want access to Iraq's oil fields)...

No point now in talking rational.


I may be uneducated about the US in some regards,

Winter, that is a understatement. Get out of school, find yourself in the real world then come back and talk this flimflam.


and I think no one should be rich on the level of millionares

How blase.

[rogue]

Good lord, did I really write "cloudies the water"? I need to up my coffee intake.:eek: I'm going to try to make some coherent thoughts,though I'm not making a guarantee.


Is there a way for us to figure out what the indirect benefits of public infrastructure/services are, relative to income as a whole, and incorporate that into our taxation scheme? I think that's what I was actually asking. And the reason I was asking it is because I would find analysis of something like that, provided it was done in a reasonably thorough, straightforward way, rather compelling. By way of example, presumably the Walton family has a greater vested interest in our transportation infrastructure, our civil security, our national security and our diplomatic relationships with other countries. This would extend to education as well, etc.

While I think we can directly see how infrastructure benefits a company I'm not so sure we can really make the same link back to individuals with as much certainty. Something like Wal-Mart is a publicly traded company, one in which I have owned stock in and made money on. While the Walton family benefited from Wal-Mart doing well so did I, so do I as someone who owns stock in Wal-Mart also need to have my taxes for infrastructure use raised while owning that stock regardless if it's doing well or not? After all if the Waltons are benefiting from infrastructure and services then so am I, if a little more indirectly. But what amount should I pay? That's one reason why I believe you have to separate corporate entities from actual people.


The question I am asking is basically "given their tax burden now, are they paying too much or too little, and do we have any analytical mechanisms/tools that could give us a reasonable conclusion?"
I don't think we can come to a reasonable conclusion. I'm somewhere around middle-middle class. While my neighborhood is well off we generally use the local infrastructure and services (roads, police, public schools and libraries), the actual rich people that I know use private schools, may have their own security in their neighborhoods and even pay an association fee to maintain the roads in their communities. Other than that they use the same major roads that I do, the same highways and the same sewers, so I don't see why they need to be taxed more for services that they don't use any more than I do.

I need more coffee.

[sanjuro_ronin]

How is that fair? you still have the wealthy paying more cold cash to taxes than the average man even makes in a year.

If you want fairness, maybe dropping the income tax all together, and only taxing sales of consumer goods.

LOL !
Sure, a flat tax on all consumer goods.
Considering how cash strapped the US goverment is, I doubt THAT will ever happen !

[DPL]

the actual rich people that I know use private schools, may have their own security in their neighborhoods and even pay an association fee to maintain the roads in their communities.

Maybe I missed it in this thread somewhere, but what is the definition of 'rich people' being used for this discussion? I know quite a few folks I would classify as upper middle class who fit the definition above. I definitely would not say they're rich.

So what's rich? Over $100,000 per year? Over $200,000? I believe I read somewhere that $100k/year nowadays is roughly equivalent to $50k/year about 30 years ago, so would that really be rich?

Whatever the definition, I think the original question does not allow that so much of rich people's income is hidden or structured to prevent taxation. As an example, a very good friend of mine recently divorced a woman who would be considered rich by almost any definition, but she has no income per se. Multiple large houses, nice cars, country club memberships, money to spend on anything she wants at any time. But the bulk of her money is in offshore accounts and hidden in other ways so that he's been forced to pay child support to help her 'provide' for her children when she buys a new Jaguar every six months or so. Not trying to derail this into a child support discussion - the point is, her money is mostly if not completely hidden from the government. So it can't be taxed.

[David Jamieson]

rich people pay more taxes than you and me anyway.

say you pay 25% of your 60k a year in taxes and jimmy goldengold pays 25% of his millions.

he's already paying more than you.

and if he does the charity give away to lower his bill, then he's taken care of social welfare where you are not.

if he has a company that employs people, then he's contributing to society there as well.

if he spreads his money around to do good things like distribute medicine to countries that can't get it otherwise, then he's doing a good thing.


if he's sitting on his money then it could use a little more encouragement to get it working into the economy.

what kind of pinko commie BS is it to suggest that because a person is more successful and has more money that they should not only pull their weight but carry some of yours too?

now, withholding wealth from the economy...that's another thing. that cash has got to keep flowing or it will all fall down. ask yer grampa.

[Black Jack II]

Holy ****.

Jamieson just wrote something I basically 100% agree with. Where did guy who sounds like a wandering hippy go???

Alien abuction???

[Fu-Pow]

Just exactly *How* does a wealthy man use more of the infrastructure? Do they drive more or something? Do they take bigger dumps, and thus need larger sewer pipes?

If anything they contribute far more, by providing JOBS, and HEALTH insurance to thier workers, not to mention creating consumer goods and products that fill the demands of the average middle income population.

Your premise is skewed. Think about it.

Because those people making money are making it from the labor of their employees who use the public infrastructure. Its like a pyramid, they are on the top so not only do they make direct use of it but all those people that work for them do too. So indirectly they are using it more, benefiting from it more and should pay more into it. And within reason it will only benefit them and make them more money. That's the funny thing. Without some kind of infrastructure, they would not be as rich as they are.

If you look at 3rd world countries you typically have 2 classes...super rich and dirt poor. There is very little middle class. The rich hoard their wealth and don't put anything back into the infrastructure. But its a limiting strategy. There's a reason those countries remain 3rd world. Whereas if you go to countries where there is a graduated tax system the overall prosperity, rich and poor, goes up (ie you have more millionares). At least that's what I've witnessed.

It can go too far though and you end up with socialism which kind of kills the entrepreneurial spirit altogether.

[DPL]

Because those people making money are making it from the labor of their employees who use the public infrastructure. Its like a pyramid, they are on the top so not only do they make direct use of it but all those people that work for them do too. So indirectly they are using it more, benefiting from it more and should pay more into it. And within reason it will only benefit them and make them more money. That's the funny thing. Without some kind of infrastructure, they would not be as rich as they are.


Okay, following this logic, a small shop owner who employs five people and pulls in $50,000/year should pay more taxes than a person who works for someone else and pulls in $50,000/year, right? Because the shop owner derives more benefit from the infrastructure since his employees use it too?

That makes no sense to me.

[Yum Cha]

Not some fat a$$ welfare mom with 6 kids, with 3 different baby daddies, who does nothing but sit inside all day, smoke pot, bone other losers without protection and watch Maury on the new tv they somehow are able to get there hands on with other peoples cash.

BJ, you were saying?

[Merryprankster]

Rogue, DPL,

Basically what Fu-Pow said in the part DPL quoted, but a person making 50,000 would hardly be considered "rich." I would argue that given his middle class income he's not benefiting from it more... he might be USING it more, but his benefit seems questionable.

I would expect some kind of sliding scale to result if this were ever done.

Again though, the question is not that the rich benefit more greatly from public goods & services, but rather, what's the relative benefit compared to the middle class, and compared to what they pay now?

And I'm not sure we can answer that question, but it would be interesting to try.

Ah, **** it. Let's just go with a flat tax on socks.

[IronWeasel]

Because those people making money are making it from the labor of their employees who use the public infrastructure. Its like a pyramid, they are on the top so not only do they make direct use of it but all those people that work for them do too. .


Yeah, but those 'employees' pay taxes of their own, thus paying for the infrastructure that THEY use. The rich guy still only uses the same amount as the others.

[Merryprankster]

Ironweasel, not true.

His/her money, all of it, can in some percentage be tied back to that infrastructure. By default, the rich gain more benefit, in an absolute sense.

[Yum Cha]

Firstly, what are the public infrastructure we speak about?

Roads, public waterways (flood control included) and other elements of "Interstate commerce"

Providing for the public defense? i.e. Military, disaster relief, intelligence.

Pretty evenly spread? or? Some use for profit, some use for entertainment, some use to supply their labour... Defense theoretically is an equal distribution

How about Courts, subsidised medical research, Education (grants and infrastructure). Federal reserve bank, regulators, police, prisons, arts programs, welfare and support for the poor or disadvantaged, national parks, elections themselves, etc, etc.

Its not a case of user pays for all these things, the cost of the calculation and enforcement would be greater than the savings.

The issue is, there are costs. We don't tax the poor, because they don't have it to pay. They get denied services as well, actively or passively.

We tax the middle a little, because they have some, but not heaps of dosh to spend. Got to leave them some for disposable income, to consume and drive the economy.

We tax the wealthy a bit more, because there are lots of them and basicly, you fish where there are fish.

We tax the Rich and mega rich less than you think, because they put their dosh to work in other ways that are good for the country (tax breaks), but if they don't, its open season on their income.

The fact is, the beast needs to be fed. Starve it at your peril.

Peril? Failed intel to protect NY? Street Crime and disease? Electric, water or road infrastructure failure that effects the economy? etc, etc.

Personal wealth is not a right, it is given to you by the government, the economy and your fellow man if you do the right thing. IMHO.

[Black Jack II]

Man, you have some selective reading skillz there Yum.

This is what you said.

QUOTE]Do you really think all your welfare dollars go to pot smoking, trick turning, crack mamma baby factories[/QUOTE]

You took this below and added some cheeky sauce to it, where did I say I think all my welfare dollars go to pot smoking, trick turning, crack mamma baby factories??

All is the important word in that sentance if the bold does not make it stand out enough.

It is just one facet of where my tax dollars go, I also know it goes to other programs, both crappy and good. Woebegone to the person who thinks career welfare is something malevolent I take it.:cool:

Plus, for the record I don't drive a Ford, though we do own one, but I drive a Dodge.:D

[IronWeasel]

Ironweasel, not true.

His/her money, all of it, can in some percentage be tied back to that infrastructure. By default, the rich gain more benefit, in an absolute sense.

Not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate a bit?

[BlueTravesty]

class envy is a funny thing... I love this idea that all rich people are in high-rises doing nothing but screwing secretaries, if they have jobs at all. Are there people like that? Yeah, and they're scum. But a LOT of the people who got where they are got there by working their butts off for it. It's easy to look at someone else's job- particularly someone who is better off than you, and say "That's easy, they totally don't deserve that" because in parentheses you're thinking (I work way harder, I deserve that sort of life much more.)

I used to have to deal with that at my old job a lot. Never mind the fact I was working 6 day weeks, 7 day weeks when things got tough, double shifts etc. up to 75 hours a few of those weeks. No, I had it easy because I was a "manager" and of course I was making more money. Of course they deserved it more than me- after all, they worked 40 hours a week or so, didn't have to drag fixtures down from shelves on rickety latters that looked for all the world like they were made from tin, and didn't have to get chewed out by the Store or District manager all the friggin time.

FWIW, even at my job now, which pays slightly more, I make less than $25K/year... but I still have worse credit than people who can't even pay for their own food. Go figure.

[Yum Cha]

Blackjack, you never sat around the pub making bombastic statements with your mates before, just to get a rise? Indeed, I'm SURE you have.

We have dole bludgers here that put your crack mamas to shame!

:D:D

[Black Jack II]

Blackjack, you never sat around the pub making bombastic statements with your mates before, just to get a rise? Indeed, I'm SURE you have.

Of course I have. What redblooded troublemaker does not!

All the time man, all the time.

[Merryprankster]

Ironweasel,

I mean that of each dollar earned in the United States, some portion of that dollar is owed, directly or indirectly, to government goods and services.

The rich have more dollars. Therefore, in an absolute sense (ie, just tallying up the numbers), they benefit more from those goods and services, if we treat each dollar equally. I think this is obvious on it's face.

The question I am curious about though is this - do the rich benefit RELATIVELY more than others from public goods and infrastructure AND/OR do they benefit more or less than their current tax burden.

[rogue]

The question I am curious about though is this - do the rich benefit RELATIVELY more than others from public goods and infrastructure AND/OR do they benefit more or less than their current tax burden.

You guys are losing me with this pyramid idea. Can we first define what do we mean by "rich"?
For example let's create a two income family, together they make about 80K each per year. They save half or more of the wifes pay check and live off of the rest. They earn extra cash from CDs and the stock market. They have zero credit card debt and could pay off their house and their remaining car loans tomorrow. They have a growing bank account. Are they rich?

[DPL]

Ironweasel,

I mean that of each dollar earned in the United States, some portion of that dollar is owed, directly or indirectly, to government goods and services.

The rich have more dollars. Therefore, in an absolute sense (ie, just tallying up the numbers), they benefit more from those goods and services, if we treat each dollar equally. I think this is obvious on it's face.

The question I am curious about though is this - do the rich benefit RELATIVELY more than others from public goods and infrastructure AND/OR do they benefit more or less than their current tax burden.

I think you're imposing a black and white lens to describe a landscape shaded in all possible shades of gray. It doesn't seem legitimate to treat every dollar as equal, because there are so many removed steps of revenue transfer to get to the point that a dollar has been 'earned'.

For instance, let's say I have a blog about basketball that becomes so popular that a number of companies decide to advertise on the blog, thus creating an earned income for me. There will be a string of 'earned' dollars related to this blog including:

1) Me earning money from advertising
2) The advertisers earning money from any sales they make from those ads
3) The employees of these advertisers (sales, marketing, operations, etc.)
3) The corporations whose retail stores sell those advertisers' goods (let's say sports drinks)
4) The employees who work at those corporations (same as above)
5) The logistics companies who ship the drinks to the retail stores (and their owners)
6) The warehouse employees who store the drinks (and their owners)
7) The manufacturing employees who oversee creation of the drinks
8) The chemists/scientists who invent and continually refine the drink
9) Testers, etc.

The list could go on and on, especially when you throw offshore production into the equation.

At different points in the process, various government services will be accessed, but those services are variable in value and do not apply to every step in the process. For instance, the benefit of whatever government services facilitate shipment of the product is DIRECT for the logistics company, but removed 4-5 times for me.

So anyway, let's say the warehouse owner, the trucking company owner and one of the retail store owners make exactly the same amount each year - say $200,000. But the retailer likely has 2-5 employees and the warehouse guy maybe 10-20 and the logistics guy 20-40. And they all have different profit margins, so they're pumping various amounts of money back into the government services we're discussing.

And maybe I make $200,000 from advertising revenue, with no employees and using the least possible amount of government services. And maybe one of the VP's at the sports drink company makes $200,000.

Can you really say that all those dollars are equal in the sense of derived value from services? I don't think you can.

All that being said (taking a breath)... I don't think a sweeping statement can be made that ALL rich (and I still don't know where 'rich' begins) benefit relatively more than the non-rich. But it's probably a given that at least some of them do. I just don't know if you can pin it down beyond that.

Would love to see you try, though... :)

[Merryprankster]

rogue,

a better thing might be "high income."

A person with high net worth can still have a low income if they don't get much cash flow and their assets are illiquid.

I would not classify 80K per year gross income as rich, personally or having especially high income.

And I'm not necessarily buying in to the "pyramid idea" exactly. I'm actually asking IF that's the case.

The only thing I think we can say for certain is this: If we are simply tallying straight numbers, and we treat each dollar as equal, in terms of how much of that dollar is derived from public goods/services, then it's clear that the rich derive a greater absolute benefit. Like if, say 20% of that dollar is due to public goods/services, then a person with 50,000 derives a 10,000 benefit, while a person with an income of 100,000 derives a 20,000 benefit.

Simply by dint of having more dollars, they have a greater total (absolute benefit).

The question I am asking is basically "are all dollars created equal," in regards to the % of value derived from public goods/services? I think the answer is probably no, and because of the way in which capital is created in free markets, "derived" capital (return on investments, etc) probably benefits more, per dollar, than something like a dollar earned by a minimum wage worker, because the "derived" dollars are built on backs of other dollars, using again more of those public goods and services in the creation process. (like regulations, public regulation money, policy oversight, etc). So, since each of the "derived" dollars used SOME amount of public goods and services AND used dollars which already got some of THEIR value from public goods and services, the total public goods and services portion of that dollar is greater than the input dollars (maybe).

It's like a value added tax, except this time, I'm tallying the amount of "public goods/services value" added to each dollar.

Now, it's possible that there are efficiencies of scale and such in the capital creation system that actually render each derived dollar less dependent on public goods and services than its input dollars.....

So what I'm asking is - is there any way to measure this, should we bother trying and assuming we COULD, would such a measurement create a "fairer," (not more just) tax system, by comparing all of that to our current tax burden now?

Or, we could just assess a flat tax on socks.

Or underpants. Whichever.

[Merryprankster]

DPL,

In essence, I agree with you. I think I just wrote a version of what you did.

I was treating all the dollars as "equal," for the sake of demonstration and also because, in the aggregate, those lumps and bumps even out. So if I am talking about the "dollars of the rich," it's a reasonable assumption, in the aggregate that there is greater absolute benefit derived, especially given the sheer number of dollars that the rich possess compared to the middle class (ie, a person with a 500,000 per year income would have to benefit 1/10th as much as a person with 50,000 per year income, which seems unlikely).

Relative benefit though.... who knows?

[Fu-Pow]

class envy is a funny thing... I love this idea that all rich people are in high-rises doing nothing but screwing secretaries, if they have jobs at all. Are there people like that? Yeah, and they're scum. But a LOT of the people who got where they are got there by working their butts off for it.

The funny thing to me is that you know nothing about anyone posting here. We might be from a lower or higher social stratus. You really have no idea. And since its pretty irrelevant to the argument it has no place in it.

[rogue]

Merry, I don't consider 80K for a family rich either, but they'd be on their way to being comfortable in the right part of the country. They'd more than likely be considered somewhere in the lower or middle middle class. It could be the analyst side of me that is having trouble with this, I still would like clearer and more concrete definitions of rich and high income. A person making 80K in Mississippi would be closer to a high income than a person making the same in San Francisco. For the sake of argument toss out if you will a yearly income number, a net worth number and what this hypothetical high income person does.

[Merryprankster]

It's not the analyst part of you, it's the concrete detail part of you. You want to know how the idea would WORK and it's easier for you to see that with specific examples....

You know how some people seem to "get" over arching concepts and principles and can't seem to follow through on details? That's me.

People like me need people like you around to make sure we don't go chasing fantasies...

The problem is, I'm not even sure if what I'm asking for is possible - see what I mean about chasing fantasies, LOL! :D

Incidentally, according to available data, a household (not individual) that takes in 80K a year would be near the upper quintile of income. I think that reveals a lot about income distribution in the US.

In order to be in the upper 3.33% of households, you only have to take in 200K per year. Really, that's not that much when you consider WHERE that places them in the income hierarchy. It puts incomes in perspective.

Especially when you compare it to housing costs in San Francisco - Jeez! I'm renting out here because buying is obscene, because I can make more money by investing the difference between rent and mortgage than I would likely gain in appreciation, and because I firmly believe that the disparity between incomes and housing can't last. The place I'm renting would go for $750K, easy and it's just a normal, single family dwelling with a small back patio and nothing special about it, cept it's 20 minutes from work no matter what the traffic is like and the area is so safe it's boring.

Now, I understand what you are talking about with respect to state/area you live in, but I'm looking at this from a federal/national perspective, not pro-rated for cost of living in the area. The feds charge you regardless of your state.

But...for the sake of argument....

Let's say that the person makes oh, $200K a year in gross income a year. Wealth doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure we don't tax wealth, except indirectly (property taxes etc).

I think we can agree that a $200K person, whether an employee or self-employed is highly unlikely to be a "worker" in the common sense of the term. That is, if they are plumbers, they probably have gone beyond just the income they generate through their personal, individual work and have some employees and a shop, etc. Caveat for the touchy - Relax, I'm not denegrating trades and manual labor. I'm suggesting that a trade + business acumen + entrepreneurship can sure as hell bring in serious bread. In fact, I think trade/skilled labor & votech education is vastly underappreciated in this country.

But I digress.

Now, I don't know what that individual's expenses are, but I am talking about their PERSONAL gross income, not their BUSINESS gross income etc.

This is the part where details escape me and I can only provide a concept, unless I illustrate with hypothetical numbers, like I tried to above.

Here is what is so highly probable that I will classify it as a "known": In actual dollar value, the part of that 200K that owes its existence to public goods and services is greater than the part of a 50K income that owes its existence to public goods and services.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that each dollar the 50K person earned owes 20% of its existence to public sector stuff. They owe 10K of their income to the common benefits of the public sector.

In order for the 200K person to owe LESS of their income to the common benefits of the public sector, they would have to owe less than 5% of each dollar they earned in income to the public sector.

I find that sort of disparity implausible on the face of it. It's POSSIBLE, but then again, there is a finite chance, thanks to quantum mechanics, that you can walk through the great wall of china.

So, absolutely, in terms of actual dollars earned, the 200K guy owes more of their money to the common benefits of the public sector than the 50K guy.

Here's the thing: My suggestion is that "all dollars are equal, but some are more equal than others." They all spend the same, but the value of each dollar derived from public sector common benefits is different, depending on how that dollar is generated. In concept, it's similar to a value added tax.

In a value added tax, you tax each portion of "value" added to the thing in question as defined by the exchange price. Like if you buy tomatoes from a farmer for 1.00 with a 5% VAT, then you pay 1.05 in total - 1.00 to the farmer and .05 to the gubmint. Then you make tomato sauce with it, and sell that to a retailer for, let's say, 1.25, base price. The retailer would pay a total of 1.3125. 1.25 to you, and .0625 to the gubmint. Then the retailer sells that to a consumer at 1.60. The consumer pays 1.60 to the retailer and .08 to the gubmit, a total of 1.68. In total, the gubmint collects nearly .20 on the entire thing.

Now, while the final guy only paid 8 cents in tax, the final price owed nearly 1/8th (12.5%) of its amount to the 20 cents of tax. Whereas the tax on the raw input represented only (lessee, carry the one...) 4.75% of the total price of the raw input.

As you move further and further down the "exchange line" to the consumer, the total percentage of the cost owes more and more to taxation. As the number of exchanges increases, the % of the cost owed to tax rises (in general - certainly somebody charging a ridiculous profit margin could eliminate this, but they wouldn't be in business long unless the market were wierd, would they?)

So what I'm curious about/speculating/suggesting is that the further removed a dollar is from its bare bones generation source, the more of that dollar's value is owed to the common benefits of public goods and services, because of the number of steps in the transaction chain. At each exchange where value is generated (ie, capital is created), something moved on roads...was kept safe by the US military...was enabled by government oversight of regulatory issues...was the result of public education funds... etc. Note that I am including indirect benefits as well. If we could define and tax this accordingly, it would result in a fairer tax, in theory.

The more I have been forced to think about this though, the more I think what I am talking about has a fatal flaw in the concept: The cyclical nature of cash flow. A dollar earned by a minimum wage employee probably was generated by capital speculation (probably the "furthest" down the chain you can get in this example), which will eventually become feedstock for money/dollar supply growth. What this means is that in order to implement something like this, you would have to arbitrarily pick a "beginning."

Now, THAT'S unfair to whoever is stuck at the "end." For instance, if you decide that the point in the cycle furthest from the minimum wage employee is the "beginning," then they would actually foot the highest tax burden, using the above concept. I think we can all agree that that would be socially disasterous on top of illustrating the total impracticality/waste of time this has turned out to be.

Hence my new proposal for a flat tax on undergarments.

On the upshot, I had to reason my way through a ****load of monetary macro-economic issues that I hadn't really thought about before, so for me, it was totally worth it.

Now, this does all raise a related, interesting question - if we treat all dollars as deriving the same percentage of their value from public goods and services, then is a flat tax indeed the fairest method? It might very well be.

But, we could also argue something slightly different along these lines: That the rich have a greater relative vested interest in keeping the system working, and therefore should pay a somewhat greater share, relatively speaking, than the great unwashed :). All other things being equal a person who earns 200K presumably has a greater desire, even if unspoken, to ensure that the public goods and infrastructure that enable their earning power remain in place than the person earning 50K. Put simply, they "want/demand" it more, and are willing to sacrifice a greater percentage of their income than their 50K counterpart for it, because it doesn't inhibit their quality of life that much to pay say, 20% of their income, to guarentee future system stability - which is the fundamental source of their earning power, and helps ensure they continue to be high income.

In contrast, a 10% hit more heavily impacts the 50K person, and they aren't doing all THAT hot in the system, by comparison anyway, so they "want/desire" the system a little less.

My mischevious (sp?) nature is amused by this idea: the use of supply and demand for the public sector, to justify a higher tax rate for high income folks, when the invisible hand is so often proffered by the far right as the appropriate regulatory mechanism for just about anything you can think of, LOL.

I think there might actually be some merit in this argument, in a strictly rational sense. However, it's a slippery slope from here to some rather less bright ideas about the burgeoise, the masses and really stupid, historically determinist theories about human civilization...

[Merryprankster]

I think I may have killed this thread with that post, LOL!:p

[rogue]

I need more coffee.:eek:

[rogue]

I'm going to try and distract MP with this until I can read his last post.


Original Story URL:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=610122


Running on empty
Hit by high prices and fees, some gas station owners stop selling fuel
By THOMAS CONTENT
tcontent@journalsentinel.com
Posted: May 23, 2007

As gas prices hit another record last Friday, Jeff Curro couldn't take it anymore.

He wasn't a motorist at the pump fed up by the blur of numbers spinning higher as he filled his tank.

Curro is a gas station owner who has stopped selling gas to his own customers.

After selling gas at N. 124th and W. Burleigh streets for 20 years, Curro turned off his pumps at his Shell station in Brookfield when the price he was being asked to pay was just too much.

Including the wholesale cost of gas and other taxes and charges, he was being asked to pay $3.44 a gallon Friday, a day when the competing stations down the street were selling gasoline for $3.47.

"Three cents a gallon doesn't cut it," Curro said. "It doesn't pay the bills."

Add to that the money he loses every time a motorist uses a credit card at the pump, and there was no reason to keep selling gas, Curro said.

Credit card companies and banks get an average of 2.75% on every gallon of gas sold, and credit card processing fees now rank as the second-biggest expense for gas station operators, according to the National Association of Convenience Stores.

"The way I see it is, I'm doing all the work of providing the labor, the wages, the electricity, the lighting, the maintenance of the pumps, the repairs and the insurance, which is quite substantial," Curro said. "I'm doing all the work, and somebody else is getting fat on me."

Curro isn't alone in deciding to not sell gas anymore. Casey O'Gorman did the same thing. In business for 25 years near State Fair Park, his West Allis service station is now doing business exclusively as Auto Analyzers. The Shell name came down a few months back.

"I finally had to just pull the plug on it and say, 'I can't afford to do it anymore,' " O'Gorman said.
High wholesale prices

Curro and O'Gorman are leaving a relatively small and disappearing group of service station owners who both sell gas and repair cars.

Independent auto-repair shops face competition from car dealerships and quick-lube repair shops, and in the sale of gasoline, they compete against full-line convenience stores.

Most gas stations today double as convenience stores, and although they generate more than two-thirds of sales from gas, two-thirds of profit comes from in-store sales of cigarettes, drinks and food, according to the convenience store association.

When drivers are paying more, they think that means higher profits for the filling station, said Bob Bartlett, executive vice president of the Wisconsin Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Stores Association.

The case of the two Shell stations stopping sales of gas illustrates the challenges faced by independent station owners across the state, Bartlett said. Nine of 10 stations in the state are independently owned and run, he said.

Between Feb. 1 and Monday, Bartlett said, the average wholesale price paid by service stations in Milwaukee to buy gasoline rose from $1.66 to $2.94. Add in taxes paid to the federal and state governments, as well as transportation costs, and the average service station had to cover $3.47 on Monday, without charging any profit. On that day, stations were charging their customers $3.47 on average in Milwaukee, according to AAA's Daily Fuel Gauge Report.

"People are upset about oil and gas prices, but it's not this guy right here," Bartlett said of the independent gas station owner. "He's not OPEC. He's not refining it. He's buying it kind of like I am, right at the end of the line here."
Sales up, profit down

Curro has been thinking about shutting down his gas pumps for about a year, and he has complained to his supplier about prices.

When he shut down his pumps, he was charging $3.59 a gallon, 12 cents higher than the competing stations nearby.

"Even at $3.59, I was making 15 cents, but I was still giving 10 of those cents to MasterCard," he said.

Nationally, the Association of Convenience Stores estimates that sales rose 12% but profit fell 23% industrywide last year, and for the first time, credit card fees were higher than the industry's profit.

Lower margins on the sale of fuel and credit card fees were the two main factors behind the drop in profit, the association said, as profit margins on the sale of fuel dipped to their lowest point since 1983.

Until January, O'Gorman and the predecessors at S. 84th St. and W. Greenfield Ave. sold gasoline on that corner since 1938.

He says he never made much money selling gas but started seeing margins nosedive last year when gas prices rose.

"More and more, it was crowding out my real form of income," O'Gorman said, referring to car repairs.

"Then you listen to the public, and they say we're gouging them. Who needs to listen to that? I'd need to have my head examined."


Buy a link here




From the May 24, 2007 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

[DPL]

I think I may have killed this thread with that post, LOL!:p

Yeah, ultimately this thread pretty much highlights why I didn't major in economics, and why those folks have my utmost respect. It's convoluted to an almost impossible point to understand cause and effect on any kind of stable level.

To keep it going, though... :cool:

I pretty much fundamentally disagree that anything other than a flat tax makes sense when talking purely about income. Any proposed justification (again, income-only) that the rich should pay more percentage of their income in taxes just comes across as a rationalization for some flavor of socialism, even if it's socialism-lite or socio-capitalism. (I'm actually against an income tax at all, because I have so little trust in career politicians making financial decisions that even vaguely approach the public's best interest, but that's another topic.)

I've never been convinced that being successful should be punished. Same basic reasoning for estate taxes - the rich get punished again for being successful, even though everything being taxed post-death was already taxed at least once as income or otherwise during life.

It seems to me that the people who usually end up getting hurt the most by laws like these are the people who have just barely climbed into the next highest tax bracket. They end up losing money, and that's a pretty big dis-incentive for anyone.

So, yeah - flat tax on underwear. Ladies' underwear. Thongs especially...

[Ultimatewingchun]

"So what's rich? Over $100,000 per year? Over $200,000? I believe I read somewhere that $100k/year nowadays is roughly equivalent to $50k/year about 30 years ago, so would that really be rich?

Whatever the definition, I think the original question does not allow that so much of rich people's income is hidden or structured to prevent taxation. As an example, a very good friend of mine recently divorced a woman who would be considered rich by almost any definition, but she has no income per se. Multiple large houses, nice cars, country club memberships, money to spend on anything she wants at any time. But the bulk of her money is in offshore accounts and hidden in other ways so that he's been forced to pay child support to help her 'provide' for her children when she buys a new Jaguar every six months or so. Not trying to derail this into a child support discussion - the point is, her money is mostly if not completely hidden from the government. So it can't be taxed." (DPL)

..................................

"a person making 50,000 would hardly be considered "rich." I would argue that given his middle class income he's not benefiting from it more... he might be USING it more, but his benefit seems questionable." (MP)


***AND HERE is where the rubber hits the road, imo...Clearly in today's world "rich" can't be considered reality unless you're making at least $200,000. per year...AND ALL THE LOOPHOLES have to be closed for those who are hiding their incomes.

There's no other way to tackle this enormous problem (not enough tax money being collected by Federal and State governments)...than by raising taxes on the rich and closing the sneaky loopholes.

[Black Jack II]

Me and my wife are not at the 200k mark yet, but we are a good deal above the 100k mark, we live a comfortable lifestyle, and not even close to above our means. Yet still I feel middle-middle class due to where I live, in my view, everything has to be in that kind of micro context, as Rogue stated a few posts back I believe.

Here is the problem with high-income individuals or families paying a much larger share of the taxes. A free society must treat all citizens on the same level, so we are all equal in the eyes of the law.

For some disenchanted hippy to draw some made-up line in the sand and say "Hey, BlackJack, you have enough money, give up some of your hard earned personal property so that the government can redistribute it to someone else" should be considered a serious violation of a citizens rights and their personal liberity.

All that we enjoy at this moment, a lot of the good in our country at any rate, is because our Republic was founded on principles that are in a serious direct contrast that the governmnet should draw arbitrary descriptions of class distinction and redistribute personal property.

Here is a example,

Picture you are walking down the street going to your kwoon. You just pass by a homeless man laying on the ground. A cop comes over and stops you, and by use of force, gives the homeless man a chunk of money from your wallet or purse.

That would be kinda a sucky day now would it not?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Picture you are walking down the street going to your kwoon. You just pass by a homeless man laying on the ground. A cop comes over and stops you, and by use of force, gives the homeless man a chunk of money from your wallet or purse.

That would be kinda a sucky day now would it not?

Reply]
Yet this happens every day to everyone who works in order to fund career welfare slugs rapping the system...only they take it from your pay check before you even see it in the first place...before you knew it was yours...:(

[Sang Feng Fan]

"This redistribution of wealth is a tricky thing."
Dennis Moore

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Here is the problem with high-income individuals or families paying a much larger share of the taxes. A free society must treat all citizens on the same level, so we are all equal in the eyes of the law. "


***YEAH, that's nice...except that we're not equal. An extremely small percentage of the population own and control enormous amounts of wealth, property, and resources....and always conspire to keep it that way - for themsleves, their friends, their political/economic allies, their children, their chidren's childen, and on and on for generations....monopolies, price fixing, labor union busting/dirty tricks, the buying and selling of politicians, political power, status, judgeships, and media/newspaper companies to control the flow of information damaging to their ambitions and greed...etc...

So stop the crap, please...

The rich...and especially the ultra-rich (ie.- those who have many millions/billions in their possession and control) need to have their taxes raised.

There's just no other way that's fair if we're going to have a just society.

[Black Jack II]

Ah give it a break already with this robin hood nonsense.

An extremely small percentage of the population own and control enormous amounts of wealth, property, and resources....and always conspire to keep it that way -

Yes and so what. You expect people to want to give away what they earned so others can have a share who did not ear it?????

That seems somehow fair to you?


There's just no other way that's fair if we're going to have a just society.

According to you, maybe if you keep typing it enough somehow it will go from your personal viewpoint to fact, to bad though that its not wearing a pretty shade of the correct for everyone.

Fair is overrated man.

[bakxierboxer]

MP -


My mischevious (sp?) nature is amused by this idea: the use of supply and demand for the public sector, to justify a higher tax rate for high income folks, when the invisible hand is so often proffered by the far right as the appropriate regulatory mechanism for just about anything you can think of, LOL.

The use of "Supply & Demand" FOR "public sector services" is an "interesting concept".... of course, you're assuming that someone/everyone actually WANTS said "services". Perhaps we could even consider "marketing" them.

Surely someone would like to do a bit of thinking on the "efficiencies" of government and just what would happen if there was *COMPETITION* to *ATTRACT* your tax dollars as opposed to extor.... uhm "pre-empting" them.

Of course, I've long held the opinion that government is largely non-productive.
I arrived at this conclusion because there once was some nitwit in the GSA or similar bureaucracy that announced that government was 100% "productive". This struck me as a rather "odd" idea since most of what they "produce" is more regulation which tends to cost taxpayers/citizens even more money. After a while I began to get the idea that government was something on the order of @250+% NEGATIVELY productive.
Perhaps someone can disprove that "sneaking suspicion".....

Pete

[Ultimatewingchun]

Not give it away...just pay your FAIR SHARE of taxes if you're so wealthy. The society you live in has laws, institutions, and government breaks in place that have allowed you to get wealthy (ie.- corporate socialism) - then be ready to give something back.

Something befitting your wealth - not what befits somebody making $40-50-60-70K per year.

Don't give me the Robin Hood bull5hit.

[DPL]

Not give it away...just pay your FAIR SHARE of taxes if you're so wealthy. The society you live in has laws, institutions, and government breaks in place that have allowed you to get wealthy (ie.- corporate socialism) - then be ready to give something back.

Something befitting your wealth - not what befits somebody making $40-50-60-70K per year.

Don't give me the Robin Hood bull5hit.

I'm just curious - if you make $50k/year and I make $1,000,000/year, and we both pay 20% of our income, am I not paying my 'fair share'? You end up paying $10k, and I end up paying $200k. I'm unclear as to how that's unfair for anyone.

Except for MerryPrankster's inspired but (I believe) ultimately futile attempt to see if it's provable that the rich BENEFIT more, per dollar, from government services, the bulk of the other posts I've seen on here suggesting the rich should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes read like entitlement. "Why do those lucky b@st@rds get to have all the money while I'm sitting here struggling to pay my bills? They don't even work hard, or at least not as hard as me!!"

Success is built mainly on some combination of four factors: 1) Hard work, 2) Taking advantage of opportunities (recognizing good luck when you see it and TAKING ADVANTAGE OF IT), 3) taking risks, and 4) pure BULLSH!T. Some people purely bullsh!tted their way to wealth, lying cheating and stealing, and some worked really, really hard for it.

But if I worked really, really hard for my money, and earned every last single freaking penny of it, how is it fair to me in any way to force me to pay to support someone who may or may not have worked hard at all? Yes there are plenty of poor people who bust their @sses every day, but there are plenty of middle-class and rich people who do too. Just like there are plenty of lazy-@ss people of all income ranges as well. But I've met a whole lot more lazy-@ss poor people than rich people. Just my experience, but one that I bet is shared by the majority.

Again, if someone could prove MP's idea that the rich uniformly receive more benefit for their dollars PER DOLLAR (which I think is a fair question), then it would make sense to tax them more based on the benefit they receive.

Otherwise I'm unclear why 'amount of money' is the measure by which we determine relative social responsibility.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Here's my point, pure and simple...The Federal government clearly does not collect enough money to do the things I spoke about in my first post on this thread. (Post #76)

So where is the needed money going to come from?

A) Closing loopholes (of which they're numerous) that allow people to hide their income and their wealth...

B) Raising taxes on those who can most afford to pay them (ie.- the wealthy).

So our society needs a PROGRESSIVE tax structure. It won't work if everyone pays, say 20%, as you suggested.

[Mas Judt]

This is the wrong argument.

A progressive tax structure is inherently immoral. In fact, taxing the exchange of services, such as labor is unconstitutional. Proogressive tax systems are used to manipulate society in ways that the politicians can't with a vote. It is right from the Karl Marx handbook, and anybody who advocates a progressive direct tax on labor should be considered the immoral thug that they are. For that matter, the 'income tax' isn't even really required to raise funds. All we need to do is roll back to 2000 spending levels and we could be done with it.

However, there are constitutional taxes that could in fact be higher. The 'Death Tax' is set at too low a starting point due to inflation since it started it, and the extremely wealthy - who it was intended to tax (like the Kennedy's, Kerry's and others who advocate the middle class pay more) avoid it with off shore trust schemes.

Corporate income tax - which is constitutional could be certainly be higher. Speaking as a business person who is fighting a gross receipts tax in illinois (It will destroy the economy) - I could easily pay a higher marhin on profits if I dd not pay so many taxes and fees on my employees or witheld so much from them for the government.

Progressive taxes are a political tool that has the side effect of stripping us of our position as citizens and turns us into serfs with no due process - as the IRS has excessive powers and is widely documented to lie and cheat in order to persecute innocent Americans.

We are gradually losing our Republic due to poor primary education and univerrsities full of professors who, frankly, should not be teaching.

Now, all this being said: www.ronpaul2008.com

[Black Jack II]

Certain people seem to hate the idea, but the prosperity of a market economy often depends in a good part upon what some class as the rich. The captial they earn generates jobs and there personal savings keep interest rates lower.

A progressive tax is a parasite and as already stated technically wrong on a number of different levels from the respective of our Republic. We need to keep the rich in the country through incentives, think of the countries we used to shake our hands at that taxed the rich so much that they left there home countries, Great Britian for example, we really don't want that happening here.

We need to stop trying to pick the pockets of those who happen to be very successfull in this bizzare attempt to level a playing field.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

However, there are constitutional taxes that could in fact be higher. The 'Death Tax' is set at too low a starting point due to inflation since it started it, and the extremely wealthy - who it was intended to tax (like the Kennedy's, Kerry's and others who advocate the middle class pay more) avoid it with off shore trust schemes.

Reply]
I totally dissagree. The death tax is imoral, and down rigth wrong no matter what level it starts at. You ALREADY paid taxes on everything you own when you earned the money to buy it in the first place, AND you the paid taxes AGAIN (sales tax) when you bought the items...now you advocate paying taxes a THIRD time when you die?

Sorry, everything you have should go to your kids tax free.

You have crap like this going on in this country and you wonder why so many keep assets hidden in off shore accounts in countries with less draconian, overbearing and opressive laws.

[rogue]

This is the wrong argument.

A progressive tax structure is inherently immoral. In fact, taxing the exchange of services, such as labor is unconstitutional. Proogressive tax systems are used to manipulate society in ways that the politicians can't with a vote. It is right from the Karl Marx handbook, and anybody who advocates a progressive direct tax on labor should be considered the immoral thug that they are. For that matter, the 'income tax' isn't even really required to raise funds. All we need to do is roll back to 2000 spending levels and we could be done with it.

However, there are constitutional taxes that could in fact be higher. The 'Death Tax' is set at too low a starting point due to inflation since it started it, and the extremely wealthy - who it was intended to tax (like the Kennedy's, Kerry's and others who advocate the middle class pay more) avoid it with off shore trust schemes.

Corporate income tax - which is constitutional could be certainly be higher. Speaking as a business person who is fighting a gross receipts tax in illinois (It will destroy the economy) - I could easily pay a higher marhin on profits if I dd not pay so many taxes and fees on my employees or witheld so much from them for the government.

Progressive taxes are a political tool that has the side effect of stripping us of our position as citizens and turns us into serfs with no due process - as the IRS has excessive powers and is widely documented to lie and cheat in order to persecute innocent Americans.

We are gradually losing our Republic due to poor primary education and univerrsities full of professors who, frankly, should not be teaching.

Now, all this being said: www.ronpaul2008.com

And judging by your spelling, I'd say the process is well under way.:D
Sorry bro', couldn't resist.:o

[eomonroe00]

i first off dont believe in income taxes since we pay taxes on everything, i read somewhere that the income tax of everyone goes to pay off our national debt's interest.

rich should def. pay more, with all the tax breaks and off shore tax shelters, the rich pay a lot less, if you go by percentage of income, so lets just enforce the laws

the death/estate tax is only for those who have over 10 million dollars, and it was made so we dont have rich families pass on there fortunes creating king like dynasties that will run this country forever, so i think its a good tax, even though it hasnt worked

[eomonroe00]

and some responses say to make the rich pay more is unfair, and socialist redistribution, in one sense you are right, but than there are filthy rich people like ted turner who believe he owes america for his wealth and he believes and paying above and beyond what the law says to help, i also like this point of view

[David Jamieson]

the death/estate tax is only for those who have over 10 million dollars, and it was made so we dont have rich families pass on there fortunes creating king like dynasties that will run this country forever, so i think its a good tax, even though it hasnt worked

You have exactly that though.

The waltons are next up, but the Kennedys, Rockefellers, Hearsts and so on aren't going away and certainly have significant influence on the law making.

Tax accountability in spending is what is required in my opinion.

A publicly available accounting of every single dime that is spent is what is required in an easy to understand format with notations of who exactly approved the administration of funds to what.

we have a saying where I am from:

"this country is better than you know and worse than you think" :p

[phd]

Hadn't seen this in the thread - makes an interesting point.

http://www.jumbojoke.com/how_tax_cuts_work_100.html

From the IRS - For tax year 2004.... Taxpayers with an AGI [adjusted gross income] of at least $328,049, the top 1 percent of taxpayers, accounted for 19 percent of total AGI, representing an increase in income share of 2.2 percentage points from the previous year. These taxpayers accounted for 36.9 percent of the total income tax reported, an increase from 34.3 percent in 2003.

The top 1 % tends to pay a little more than 1/3 of the total income tax reported. Keep up the pressure, they'll find ways to get more of their assets out of harms way. I know that after I paid more in income taxes last year than my parents ever made in a year combined, one of the first things I did is start getting financial advice on how to lower my tax burden.

The Death Tax - essentially double taxation, shouldn't even be legal. I've seen small farm families lose their land because of this pos tax. Needs to be abolished asap.

Best way to fix the tax problem - get the gov't to quit spending money by the fistful. Our government should be ashamed of how poorly it manages its citizens' money.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Income tax BAH !!

Call it what it is, a tax on wages, a temporary tax grab that stayed with us just because its a huge cash cow for the government.

People getting penalized for having an income, what the F is up with that ??

Many countries don't have it and do just fine with a sales tax on everything.

A-holes and Elbows !

Maybe if we got a better return on all our tax dollars, we wouldn't be so ****ed off.

[golden arhat]

i first off dont believe in income taxes since we pay taxes on everything, i read somewhere that the income tax of everyone goes to pay off our national debt's interest.

rich should def. pay more, with all the tax breaks and off shore tax shelters, the rich pay a lot less, if you go by percentage of income, so lets just enforce the laws

i agree tho i dont believe in taxing people just because they are rich
just enforce the law


the death/estate tax is only for those who have over 10 million dollars, and it was made so we dont have rich families pass on there fortunes creating king like dynasties that will run this country forever,

too late

[DPL]

the death/estate tax is only for those who have over 10 million dollars, and it was made so we dont have rich families pass on there fortunes creating king like dynasties that will run this country forever, so i think its a good tax, even though it hasnt worked

Don't know where you got this figure but two years ago the estate tax limit in TN was $850k and the federal limit was around 1.6 million. Nowhere close to $10 million.

That's not aimed at rich people - that's aimed at the middle class. Throw in a house, a life insurance policy, standard possessions and anything extra at all and you hit $850k pretty quick. All to tax things that have already been taxed.

The estate tax may be sold to the masses as a way to keep rich families in line but as has been posted numerous times in this thread, including by me, the rich families know how to get around these things. It's hitting the middle class and it's criminal.

[mantis108]

Income tax BAH !!

Call it what it is, a tax on wages, a temporary tax grab that stayed with us just because its a huge cash cow for the government.

People getting penalized for having an income, what the F is up with that ??

Many countries don't have it and do just fine with a sales tax on everything.

A-holes and Elbows !

Maybe if we got a better return on all our tax dollars, we wouldn't be so ****ed off.

In the Case of Canada, tax grabs allows our Peter Pan of a Prime Minister (Steven Harper) to be able to live out his Neverland ideology fantasy; meanwhile, taking down the Canadian soldiers and their families' lives with it. BTW, he wouldn't lower Gas tax to ease the pressure that consumers face (no surprise there since he's really cash strapped). I just felt sick whenever a soldier or soldiers die, the Chief of Staff had to come out with "morale boosting" speeches such as it's what the solider would rather have wanted going that way making Canada proud BS (implying that professional soldiers already signed on a death roll of a mission willingly). It's the freaking politician's immature way of during with international disbute and misappropriating tax payers funds. But everyone in the country, tax payer or not, suffers. If the Canadian government comes out clean on the medical cost since we are after all running universal [re: "free"] healthcare (pyschological and physical ailments plus therapeutic) of all the military casuailties. I think Canadian would be surprised how much a strain it is on the tax revenues. Think of the moneny used to buy new tanks and other military gears that can be used to improving healthcare, homelessness, etc instead. BTW, we used to hear the spin doctors said "child poverty" now the buss words have changed to "combat terrorism". Every thing they claim is for the future of the children and it is the children really suffer the most any which way they spin it. Tax money should never be used to let immature politicians to live out their inadequate fantasy.

I have always said the Liberals might have been thieves but at least they are no murders and/or home breakers both within and without the country.

Mantis108

[Mas Judt]

www.ronpaul2008.com

[The Willow Sword]

Should the rich pay more taxes? NO. Should the Middle class and lower income families pay more taxes? NO. Should the Rich pay less Taxes? YES. Should the Middle Class and lower income families pay Less Taxes? YES

IN fact we ALL should Never have to pay Taxes Ever again.
Eliminate Taxes altogether. Hell Eliminate Money Altogether.
Let's go back to the Barter system.

Peace,TWS

[Ultimatewingchun]

"A progressive tax structure is inherently immoral." (Mas Judt)


***NONSENSE. The complete opposite is true...when the rich escape paying their fair share of taxes (because the tax structure is not progressive enough) - that's immoral.

They need to give back to the society that has institutions, laws, and government policies in place that are designed to help them get rich in the first place.

.....................................

"Certain people seem to hate the idea, but the prosperity of a market economy often depends in a good part upon what some class as the rich. The capital they earn generates jobs and there personal savings keep interest rates lower." (Black Jack II)


***IT'S ALWAYS a matter of degree - for the devil is always in the details. The Founding Fathers and the Constitution clearly tried to design a system of checks and balances that would insure that no individual or group of individuals could ever get too powerful and threaten the very cornerstones of democracy.

And some of the mega-wealthy in this country are waaaay over the top in this regard - including, for example, private companies like BLACKWATER that provide trained para-military soldiers for hire to corporations (with the blessings of the Donald Rumsfeld run Dept. of Defense) - the same BLACKWATER whose 4 "employees"....

on March31, 2004...were ambushed and burned near their jeeps by an angry mob in the Sunni stronghold of Fallujah, Iraq. Their charred corpses were hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River. The ensuing slaughter by U.S. troops would fuel the fierce Iraqi resistance that haunts occupation forces to this day.

THIS IS CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR by mega wealthy corporations (and the individuals who run them). It's no longer a question of being rich - it's a question of the MEGA rich systematically taking over and destroying the whole essence of what capitalist democracy was supposed to be about.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Sorry dude, even with a flat tax, the rich generally pay extremely more than the average person...so much infact that they are paying MORE THAN THE AVERAGE EVEN MAKES!!!!

Now you want to increase an already unfair burden with a progressive tax system too? What kind of slime ball are you anyway?

Tehn you wonder why people open accounts over seas, and run thier business centered off shore...to avoid being rapped by the oppressive Tax collecters, and idiots like you who feel the rich need to pay a year's wage of cold hard cash as taxes, + even more with the progressive tax structure.

It's not perfect, but a flat tax would be more fair than what we have now...even then, the rich STILL will be paying more cold hard cash in taxes, than most even make all year long....

[Black Jack II]

They need to give back to the society that has institutions, laws, and government policies in place that are designed to help them get rich in the first place.

Hate to tell you but they do and they do it in spades. As already stated by myself and others the rich are what helps really drive the machine in a number of regards and stating that they owe anything more is very off base from a number of constitional and moral levels.

But Ultimate, here is where I am having the problem and I have been trying to ignore it so far but when you put stuff like this down and the other tidbit you had about an immoral war in the middle of a discussion about taxes it REALLY showcases a political agenda and makes it very hard to discuss anything with you.

Like crappy one linears like the Donald Rumsfeld line, the Blackwater line about "employees", the Iraqi resistance by U.S. slaughter.....that type of bullsh!t.


And some of the mega-wealthy in this country are waaaay over the top in this regard - including, for example, private companies like BLACKWATER that provide trained para-military soldiers for hire to corporations (with the blessings of the Donald Rumsfeld run Dept. of Defense) - the same BLACKWATER whose 4 "employees"....

on March31, 2004...were ambushed and burned near their jeeps by an angry mob in the Sunni stronghold of Fallujah, Iraq. Their charred corpses were hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River. The ensuing slaughter by U.S. troops would fuel the firce Iraqi resistance that haunts occupation forces to this day.

It's cool you don't dig the United States or the war or whatever but don't act like people are not going to call you on this when it CLEARLY showcases your tax standoff.

From my standpoint its hard to talk with people who are conspiracy based at all.

[Ultimatewingchun]

This is not "conspiracy theory" - this is fact.

Read the book "BLACKWATER, the rise of the world's most powerful mercenary army", by Jeremy Scahill.

Here's one review of it:

"Jeremy Scahill's expose of the Blackwater mercenary firm forcefully demonstrates the grave dangers of outsourcing the government's monopoly on the use of force."
-JOSEPH WILSON, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.

You remember him - don't cha?

It was his C.I.A. operative wife who was outed by order of D I C K Insaney, vice president of the United States. Because Wilson knew (and publicly said) that Saddam Hussein was not trying to acquire uranium from Niger.

THAT'S TREASON.

Cheney is the most corrupt national public official to come along since Richard Nixon.

Cheney...who got mega-wealthy by running Halliburton.

[rogue]

Vic
If you're trying to establish the credibility of a book like BlackWater to people who differ in their world views from you, don't use someone like Joe Wilson.

Also if you want people to take you seriously don't start ranting and trying to get cute and clever with peoples names.

[golden arhat]

Vic
If you're trying to establish the credibility of a book like BlackWater to people who differ in their world views from you, don't use someone like Joe Wilson.

Also if you want people to take you seriously don't start ranting and trying to get cute and clever with peoples names.

umm u republicans are quite adept at mesing with names

dumbocrats
bleeding heart liberals
democraps

the list probably goes on

[FuXnDajenariht]

Sorry dude, even with a flat tax, the rich generally pay extremely more than the average person...so much infact that they are paying MORE THAN THE AVERAGE EVEN MAKES!!!!

Now you want to increase an already unfair burden with a progressive tax system too? What kind of slime ball are you anyway?

Tehn you wonder why people open accounts over seas, and run thier business centered off shore...to avoid being rapped by the oppressive Tax collecters, and idiots like you who feel the rich need to pay a year's wage of cold hard cash as taxes, + even more with the progressive tax structure.

It's not perfect, but a flat tax would be more fair than what we have now...even then, the rich STILL will be paying more cold hard cash in taxes, than most even make all year long....

lol thats sounds pretty insane...

would it make sense that i pay, say 1500 a year in taxes after making 15,000, that a millionaire would pay the same?

its called proportion man.

[FuXnDajenariht]

i think we might settle the whole fair tax thing it we figured out a formula for the value of an hour of physical labor....

how much is labor actually worth. how do you quantify ones hard work versus another?

lol such is the mystery of economics.... :rolleyes:

can concept of rich and poor even be allowed in a fair society?

it always comes down to politics doesn't it?

seriously though. wouldn't that be the entire fundamental question that needs to be answered?

[Mega-Foot]

WE just need to give more legal sanctions to common citizens to rob from the rich to give to the poor. I do it all the time, under the cover of darkness.

Seriously, after Enron and countless other financial scandals, how can anyone say the rich should have the same taxes as the single female in backwater Alabama working at Wal-Mart and as a waitress part-time, still raking in just about 20, 000 pre-tax?

Rob from the rich, give to the poor. And when the poor get rich, rob from them, to give to the rich who are now poor.

[Merryprankster]

The use of "Supply & Demand" FOR "public sector services" is an "interesting concept".... of course, you're assuming that someone/everyone actually WANTS said "services". Perhaps we could even consider "marketing" them.


My point was that I found the whole thing amusing because it's a short leap from here to the "placation of the masses" argument of Marxist thought.

I wasn't assuming that people actually "WANT" the services. I was assuming that the rich have a greater vested interest in keeping the system running, because the system helps keep them rich. That may include services that people don't actually "want" or "need," because it preserves that system.

I'm sure you can see how quickly the road on THAT line of thinking leads down to a structuralist argument of capitalist imperialism. And we have seen how stupid that argument is in reality.

DPL,

Yeah, it was worth asking the question, but I agree that it is (currently) ultimately futile.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

That may include services that people don't actually "want" or "need," because it preserves that system.

Reply]
If there is no want, or need for a product, it's value will be zero, because no one will be buying it. The rich have no control over this, and can't do anything about it.

[rogue]

My point was that I found the whole thing amusing because it's a short leap from here to the "placation of the masses" argument of Marxist thought.

I wasn't assuming that people actually "WANT" the services. I was assuming that the rich have a greater vested interest in keeping the system running, because the system helps keep them rich. That may include services that people don't actually "want" or "need," because it preserves that system.

I'm sure you can see how quickly the road on THAT line of thinking leads down to a structuralist argument of capitalist imperialism. And we have seen how stupid that argument is in reality.

DPL,

Yeah, it was worth asking the question, but I agree that it is (currently) ultimately futile.

If you put it that way, then yes a small section of the rich, along with the Imperial Senate have a very vested interest in those public services.

[Merryprankster]

If there is no want, or need for a product, it's value will be zero, because no one will be buying it. The rich have no control over this, and can't do anything about it.


I was referring to the rich, not everybody. The rich may not want or need it directly, but STRUCTURALLY, they want and need it because it enables them to maintain the system whereby they get rich and the workers stay exploited.

Again, I do NOT support this line of argumentation. I do not find structural analyses compelling, in general, and certainly not the sort of sweeping, broad-brush structuralism so often conjoined with Marxism...

[bakxierboxer]

My point was that I found the whole thing amusing because it's a short leap from here to the "placation of the masses" argument of Marxist thought.

You haven't been looking around much lately.... ever heard of the "Earned Income Tax Credit"? "placation of the masses" is EXACTLY what that is! Kinda "funny" how these "Great Society"/"Liberal" "programs" always end up looking so much like the crap that the commies were peddling. (or worse)


I wasn't assuming that people actually "WANT" the services.

??? YOU brought up "supply and demand"....


I was assuming that the rich have a greater vested interest in keeping the system running, because the system helps keep them rich. That may include services that people don't actually "want" or "need," because it preserves that system.

If there was any truth to that premise, the rich would be among the first and loudest to be begging Congress to raise their taxes. Furthermore, if those so-wonderful "services" are actually all you think they're cracked up to be, isn't it also possible that private enterprise could perform those same "services" at a more reasonable cost and in a more timely manner?


I'm sure you can see how quickly the road on THAT line of thinking leads down to a structuralist argument of capitalist imperialism. And we have seen how stupid that argument is in reality.

Stupid?
A self-negating combination of words has been termed an "oxymoron".
Actually believing that such a term is somehow significant might well be "stupid".
"capitalist imperialism" is such an "oxymoron".
At their base, "capitalism" == "make" and "imperialism" == "take"

Pete

[Merryprankster]

If there was any truth to that premise, the rich would be among the first and loudest to be begging Congress to raise their taxes. Furthermore, if those so-wonderful "services" are actually all you think they're cracked up to be, isn't it also possible that private enterprise could perform those same "services" at a more reasonable cost and in a more timely manner?

[edited for unnecessary attitude.]

My point is that STRUCTURAL MARXISTS are the ones who believe that the rich have a compelling "want and need" for services and goods they do not PERSONALLY "want or need," and are therefore willing on the whole to pay for them as a way to placate the masses, which they then exploit. In that sense, there is a "demand" for the services/goods in question.

Oh, the rich might grumble and complain and try to get out of some of it, but they'll pony up because they rely on the system, structurally, to stay rich and wealthy.

I think the argument is bunk. Marx was wrong and structural marxism is certainly wrong.

I was suggesting that from a straight up rational approach there's some validity - but the entering assumptions are not right, and the argument is flawed.

[bakxierboxer]

[edited for unnecessary attitude.]

Hmmmm.... yes, I now see a post you made while I was writing mine, and you DO say that you are not in agreement with Structural Marxists. Your initial wording looked like you were trying to use "structural analysis" on "capitalist imperialism".

[quote]My point is that STRUCTURAL MARXISTS are the ones who believe that the rich have a compelling "want and need" for services and goods they do not PERSONALLY "want or need," and are therefore willing on the whole to pay for them as a way to placate the masses, which they then exploit. In that sense, there is a "demand" for the services/goods in question.

"In the real world", it's possible that they could build their own little enclaves with all the services that they actually do want at a lower cost....??? uhm, WAIT!!! I think a lot of them already HAVE done just that.


Oh, the rich might grumble and complain and try to get out of some of it, but they'll pony up because they rely on the system, structurally, to stay rich and wealthy.

.... or have some kind of masochistic tendencies that make them want to live in areas where they're milked for all they're worth and endangered....


I think the argument is bunk. Marx was wrong and structural marxism is certainly wrong.

Cool, then we agree on that.


I was suggesting that from a straight up rational approach there's some validity - but the entering assumptions are not right, and the argument is flawed.

OK.
Then, if the entering assumptions are wrong... it isn't really possible to approach such arguments in a "rational" manner.

Pete

[FuXnDajenariht]

That may include services that people don't actually "want" or "need," because it preserves that system.

Reply]
If there is no want, or need for a product, it's value will be zero, because no one will be buying it. The rich have no control over this, and can't do anything about it.

are u kidding? they spend millions in advertisement and studies in psychology on how to manipulate peoples thoughts and wants. its for the most part a highly successful form of propaganda. the sheer amount of money they make targeting children is well documented.

[FuXnDajenariht]

[edited for unnecessary attitude.]

My point is that STRUCTURAL MARXISTS are the ones who believe that the rich have a compelling "want and need" for services and goods they do not PERSONALLY "want or need," and are therefore willing on the whole to pay for them as a way to placate the masses, which they then exploit. In that sense, there is a "demand" for the services/goods in question.

Oh, the rich might grumble and complain and try to get out of some of it, but they'll pony up because they rely on the system, structurally, to stay rich and wealthy.

I think the argument is bunk. Marx was wrong and structural marxism is certainly wrong.

I was suggesting that from a straight up rational approach there's some validity - but the entering assumptions are not right, and the argument is flawed.

exactly what services and goods are we talking about?

its seems to me if you dont have a happy, healthy working class they'll be banging on ur well manicured gated community soon enough wondering why they live in squalor while you collect the checks created from their labor....

[Yum Cha]

What? Its been a week and you haven't solved this one yet? :D

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

are u kidding? they spend millions in advertisement and studies in psychology on how to manipulate peoples thoughts and wants. its for the most part a highly successful form of propaganda. the sheer amount of money they make targeting children is well documented.

Reply]
You cannot MAKE someone want something they don't already want. All you can do is tell the public about your product, and do your best to make it appeal to the desires that already exist.

Sure, thay spend billions doing market studies to figure out what it is the market desires, and probably millions more to make sure they make products to fill those desires, but if the desire or need is not there to begin with, trying to force it to an unwanting public is a money losing venture. That is why so many products fail and go out of production every year....no amount of advertising can make them sell enough to turn a profit because no one wants them, or needs them.

[FuXnDajenariht]

its unsolvable...

but yes...im one of those who thinks the rich can very well afford to pay a few more taxes. it sure as hell isn't out of jealousy. im ****ed proud to be middle class, and i wont hide the fact that i have socialist leanings. laborers drive the economy though. im ****ed proud to earn every dollar i make with blood and sweat, which is actually what the rich are benefitting from.

it makes sense that the top 1% of the population owning 50% or more of the wealth in this country should pay a large share of its taxes from the benefits they reap on the other 99%. now i for one dont need private planes and vacation islands. all most people ask for is a comfortable living wage. but how do expect people who can barely cover health insurance and rent payments to pony up a 10-25% of their salary for taxes?

[Black Jack II]

make with blood and sweat, which is actually what the rich are benefitting from.

A LOT of them also have made it with the same blood sweat and tears.


it makes sense that the top 1% of the population owning 50% or more of the wealth in this country should pay a large share of its taxes from the benefits they reap on the other 99%.

Maybe it makes sense to you on some socialist level but not to everyone it does. That blanket statement just won't hunt.

The other 99% as you claim also in certain respects reaps off the rich in numerous ways through there tax dollars, charities and created jobs.

[Yum Cha]

[I]You cannot MAKE someone want something they don't already want. All you can do is tell the public about your product, and do your best to make it appeal to the desires that already exist.

Sure, thay spend billions doing market studies to figure out what it is the market desires, and probably millions more to make sure they make products to fill those desires, but if the desire or need is not there to begin with, trying to force it to an unwanting public is a money losing venture. That is why so many products fail and go out of production every year....no amount of advertising can make them sell enough to turn a profit because no one wants them, or needs them.

So Right,

By the way, did you see those groovy glasses Brad Pitt was wearing? Man, they cost $500 but they're worth every cent! Major chick magnets.

And, you call yourself a MAN? Driving that piece of sh1t dodge? If you can't afford a BMW, how you ever going to convince some woman you can look after her?

New Cheer has whiteners AND brightners! Get the cleaner clean that will make your family look like the brightest family on the block!

You know if it costs more, it HAS to be better.

You're in my house now Grasshopper. Need satisfaction advertising is easy, sure, no brainer. How do you think the working classes are motivated into their consumerist frenzy? Emotive appeals. Appeals to fear, status, ego, sexuality, pride, happiness, the list goes on... Look around you, how much of your "stuff" do you really need? How often do you buy stuff on impulse, coz it's "cool"?

Textbook case, McDonalds Happy Meal. All the advertising billions to drive it. The clown, hamburger man, cartoon land, nifty prizes your kids want because they are dovetailed into other popular culture driven entertainment. Why, so you'll buy them the food, which is, fair enough, not really something they "need". Possibly, at the cost of their health in favour of enrichment of the entrepreneurs. Social costs?

"Real Men drive trucks" SUVs have a much higher profit margin than conventional automobiles because they are simpler, often built with universal running gear, not monocoque designs. "They're safer" (unless you crash, in which case you have a greater chance of dying, but that's besides the point). They have all sorts of emotive appeal, but the fact is, they are uneconomical, unless you are using them as part of an profit making enterprise, i.e trades, transport, exploration, etc, or for access, like mountain roads, skiing, etc. Social cost? Carbon emissions, Petrol demand, danger to people using smaller economic transport, etc.

And then we have brand stratification. One product at the cheap end, a couple in the middle, one at the top, across wide price range, but the fact is, they are all basically the same thing (soap is the classic example) but the idea is to get people to spend as much as they will bear for preceived value. Cars, soap, cosmetics, clothing, etc, etc. Social costs? Class consciencousness, social discontinuity, emotional distress (we're talking about skinny chicks in magazines read by normal chicks that feel inadequate here, because they can't count their ribs from behind, can afford xyz jeans, or abc cosmetics, or blokes that think Colorado boots are really better than K-mart boots, that the secret to boardroom success is a Patick Phillipe watch.

An Aussie discovered that Ulsers were caused by bacteria, and they could be cured by antibiotics. He did battle with the drug companies for 10 years to prove it beyond their protestations. Drug companies made zillions selling symtomatic treatment to people for a condition that could last for years. Eventually he won a Nobel prize for medicine for the cure for Ulsers. ****ed off a lot of drug companies. Social cost of looking for lifelong treatments as opposed to cures/vaccines? Much less profitable for sure, sod the tortured souls.

Ok, so maybe I'm swinging it a bit loose here, but the point is, you buy all sorts of stuff you don't need everyday, you just think you need it. And why do you think you need it?

After 911, what was Bush's first commandment? Go out and buy. The economy needs you. And, now, for the money shot.....

And just who is making the money, when the economy booms. You make a percent, and the further up the chain, they make a BIGGER percent (not a flat rate), and up the chain, they make a BIGGER percent.

What's rich? 80k? 180k? What a lot of pesants! Million a year for a key to the clubhouse, seats in the sun. 10 million a year to get the staff to remember your name. And it goes up from there. Sure they pay more tax than I make gross, but what they make is gross, so forgive me if I don't feel guilty. They most likely used inherited capital and cronyism to keep it rolling.

So, there is a social cost, health, happiness, social cohisiveness, progress.

Yes progress. This sacrasanct idea the the wealthy make the world go round with their earth shaking discoveries of how to market an ever increasing range of brand differentiated products, or how to arbitrage economies, transport labour efficiencies across national boundries, or profiteer on scarce commodities is about run its course.

end rant - pass me one of those boutique beers, and some of those imported prawns....

[FuXnDajenariht]

blood sweat and tears in the same way as the one on the factory floor working doubleshifts to meet a deadline? you mean ordering your workers around is on the same level as 16 hours of physical labor? i understand its mentally stressful but be serious....

in what ways do tax dollars benefit? i understand that jobs for the working class are created because without them wealth wouldn't be sustained. that seems self serving. that argument is very circular in trying to establish how the rich benefit the rest of society.

also the rich arent the only ones giving to charity and having their taxes benefit the country. the rich just have more of it to give. should they be patted on the back for this fact? they'd just be called cheapskates otherwise.

if you think about it though. if wealth was distributed equally then we wouldn't be having this conversation about who contributes more to society and why.

[FuXnDajenariht]

are u kidding? they spend millions in advertisement and studies in psychology on how to manipulate peoples thoughts and wants. its for the most part a highly successful form of propaganda. the sheer amount of money they make targeting children is well documented.

Reply]
You cannot MAKE someone want something they don't already want. All you can do is tell the public about your product, and do your best to make it appeal to the desires that already exist.

Sure, thay spend billions doing market studies to figure out what it is the market desires, and probably millions more to make sure they make products to fill those desires, but if the desire or need is not there to begin with, trying to force it to an unwanting public is a money losing venture. That is why so many products fail and go out of production every year....no amount of advertising can make them sell enough to turn a profit because no one wants them, or needs them.

this completely defies the logic of why roughly half the time spent watching tv is spent watching advertisements.... if they infact did not work...


lol the commercial spot played at the halftime of the Superbowl is even bid upon for millions of dollars. a 5 minute spot worth a couple million? for no obvious benefit?

[Ultimatewingchun]

I don't think that people who believe that the rich should pay more taxes have to be subject to the "socialist" label - even if some of them believe in some sort of socialist model personally.

After all, instead of today's corporate socialism - we're talking about real Capitalist Democracy as it was envisioned by the founding fathers. A brilliant system of checks and balances was put in place so that no one individual or relatively small group of individuals could gain enormous power over society and the country at large - as it exists right now.

BUT THERE WERE NO GIANT CORPORATIONS IN THE 1700/1800'S.

The way to change the current situation, within a capitalist structure, is economic democracy to go along with political democracy through progressive taxation and the use of taxes to offer incentives for companies to go in different directions (as in energy and the automobile industry, for example). And those taxes, at this point in time, can only be gotten fairly by raising the rates upon those who can most afford to pay them - namely the ultra wealthy. (Including the closing of the most obnoxious loopholes for both individuals and corporations).

And the breaking up of some of the HUGE energy conglomerates, such as Exxon-Mobil, or example. The way a Teddy Roosevelt would probably have done. Was he a socialist?

Hardly.

Was his cousin, Franklin Roosevelt, a socialist for introducing Progressive Taxation and the Social Security safety net?

Hardly.

Both of them were smart capitalists who understood the true nature of Democracy - both economic and political. And that's the kind of political/economic direction the country needs right now: somewhere between a TR and an FDR.

Not OIL men running the country from the White House - like Bush and Cheney.

[Black Jack II]

blood sweat and tears in the same way as the one on the factory floor working doubleshifts to meet a deadline? you mean ordering your workers around is on the same level as 16 hours of physical labor? i understand its mentally stressful but be serious....

One persons blood, sweat and tears regarding what they do in work is just as important as another's, no matter the there financial position they "earned" in life. Who are you to say one works harder just because they have less money.

It comments like these that showcase why Socialism is a broken down inherit failure like its big pimp daddy Communism. Which in practice are the same.


in what ways do tax dollars benefit?

Your kidding right. The massive amount of cash the "rich" shell out really helps to bankroll all those government programs you so love. Not to mention the vast job sectors these people create which helps to drive our very economy. Even twits like Paris Hilton create jobs, the very parties she throws for buying a new pair of shoes, helps to bring food to someone elses table.

The idea of sharing incomes by government management of resources is about as disgusting to me as it gets in certain political regards. Forced socialism and its uptopian scheme's have failed time and time again in its search of a absurd equality and its destruction of free will.

What does a centralized economy to function lead us into....lost productivity and corruption. Let's just even mention Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler, Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, all outstanding citizens of this way of thinking.

Socialist societies of the past went the way of the Berlin Wall, Soviet Union, Eastern Block, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Sandinsita's Nicaragua, the Brook Farm and those actually still around with us today are walking zombies. Cuba which has all but abandoned socialism due to poverty, which of course like most the others of its ilk became a dictatorship, China, hopes to catch some sweet capitalist-style reform with some expanded free trade ever since Mao put them in the crapper, North Korea, on the brink of freakin starvation due to socialisms disastrous outcome.

Should we even bring up the Socialist death tolls across the world.....Mao Tse-Tung's "Great Step Forward" is widely known as the greatest disaster in attempt of a centralized economy. Countless millions were murdered and starved to death in China during this period. China also established a series of gulag concentration camps under Mao, complete with slave labor employing over 10 million people on numerous occasions. In fact, China still employs widespread forced labor today, with estimates on China suggest the total to be about 40 million dead.

Please keep your dead failure in practice to yourself. Most people who adopt socialism anyway do it because they are younger of age and use it for the sole purpose of misplaced social deviance and to protest what they think is a romantic value of anti-capitalism.